8-26-25 CDB Adopted MinutesMINUTES
Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting
Tuesday, August 26, 2025 - 6:00 PM
City Hall, Commission Chamber
800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Present: Kirk Hansen, Chair
Ellen Golombek, Vice Chair
Angela Farford, Member
Harold Gear, Member
Richard Arthur, Member
Absent:
Jeff Haynie, Member
Gregory (Greg) Beliles, Alternate Member
Jennifer Lagner, Member
Also Present: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Department Dir. (NDD)
Abrielle Genest, Principal Planner (PP)
Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk
Rob Graham, City Attorney (CA)
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approve minutes of the July 15, 2025 regular meeting of the Community
Development Board.
The minutes were approved.
3. OLD BUSINESS
There was no new business.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2127 Beach Avenue ZVAR25-0015 (Stephanie Gallagher and Kevin Partel)
Request for a variance to Section 24-151(a) to build an accessory use prior to having a
principal use and Section 24-157(b)(5) to exceed the maximum height for a retaining
wall and the minimum 40 feet separation between retaining walls at 2127 Beach Avenue.
Principal Planner Abrielle Genest presented the request for a variance from Section 24-
151(a) to build an accessory use prior to having a principal use and Section 24-157(b)(5)
to exceed the maximum height for a retaining wall and the minimum 40 feet separation
between retaining walls at 2127 Beach Avenue.
Genest explained that the property is located on the north end of Beach Avenue in the
residential multifamily general zoning district. It is oceanfront, 75 feet wide and 182 feet
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 1 of 11
deep. She noted "the previous home was demolished in 2018. It has since sat vacant."
The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the existing bulkhead and build a new wood
deck cantilevered over the bulkhead before constructing the single-family home.
The existing bulkhead was built in the early 2000s and permitted through DEP, though
a variance was not obtained at that time. Genest explained the first request relates to
Section 24-151(a), which states "accessory uses and structures are permitted within any
zoning district where the accessory uses or structures are clearly ancillary in connection
with and incidental to the principal use allowed within that zoning district." Since the
deck would be constructed before the single-family home, a variance is required.
The second request involves the bulkhead height. The code limits retaining walls to 4
feet with a minimum 40 -foot separation between walls. The existing bulkhead is 7 feet
high, and there's a buried seawall 9 feet away from it. Genest stated: "So the applicant is
requesting to reduce that separation from 40 feet to 9 feet."
Richard Arthur inquired about what it would look like to meet code requirements. Genest
responded that "if they had to come into compliance with the code, we would only allow
maximum retaining wall height of 4 feet, so that would require some additional grading
of the lot."
When asked if replacement calls for sheet pile metal, Genest indicated she believed the
engineering plans in the application would show those details.
The Chair declared no ex parte communications from board members.
Applicant representative Stephanie Gallagher, a planner representing the Fergusons,
explained that the homeowners purchased the property at the end of last year with plans
to build a new home. She stated: "First thing they thought they should do is replace that
wall and deck. It's a little dilapidated."
Gallagher argued that starting with the bulkhead made logical sense from a building
standpoint, noting "the rules were there. It was interpreted differently." She explained
that when municipalities "lump walls and fences together with bulkheads and retaining
walls, you're almost always going to have a huge drop off on the other side or at least
some sort of grade variation."
Regarding the deck, Gallagher said: "I mean, we don't have to do the deck now. It kinda
made sense to do it with the wall, so that's something we could, you know, do later. I
think we were surprised that a deck is seen as an accessory use." She emphasized that
the lots in the area "slope up to about 20 feet" and they're trying to maintain the existing
grade.
When asked why build the deck before the principal structure, Gallagher explained:
"From the builder's perspective, starting at the back of the lot and getting this replaced
first and then building the house farther back made sense." She also noted concerns about
knowing the site layout and grading before planning the home.
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 2 of 11
On the height variance, a board member asked why not grade down when excavating.
Gallagher responded that there's a code requirement not to significantly change the
grade, and that lowering would make this property lower than adjacent properties which
are also at about 20 feet elevation. She emphasized that Atlantic Beach stormwater
regulations would require them to "retain all the runoff on-site, likely in some sort of
underground containment."
During the courtesy of the floor, several neighbors spoke in opposition:
Brent Swindle stated: "I'm not trying to shut anybody down. Someone just paid $6
million for a lot. Like, I get it. You want to build your house by all means. All I'm asking
is can there's a reason for the code. Can we bring it to code?" He expressed concerns
about the property already sitting "significantly higher than ours" with existing runoff
issues, asking "if there's a code and I know Atlantic Beach is very stringent on code. If
there's a code, why aren't we sticking to it?"
Jennifer Moreno, who lives directly behind the property, described having to spend "over
6 figures in our backyard" due to drainage issues from the higher elevation. She stated:
"that property that is all the same height dropped right down into our property, which is
6 feet lower. And so we're just sitting there waiting to drown." She noted ongoing erosion
issues because the property "was left unkempt. Everything's overgrown, and it's
constantly blowing and damaging our backyard."
Megan Timke of Seminole Road raised concerns about precedent, stormwater runoff,
erosion to the beach, and habitat for gopher tortoises. She stated: "We have our rules in
place for a reason, and we need our citizens to follow those rules. We grant the severity,
what's next? Who else is going to come for what reason?"
Andrew Thomas from Ocean Village condos stated: "Building codes exist so that all
residents can enjoy Atlantic Beach equally. Granting variances to those codes restricts
others' rights to that mutual enjoyment." He described his small 1000 foot backyard
immediately adjacent to the property, noting the overgrown foliage has caused his fence
to nearly fall. He asked the city to "postpone the approval of variances until a study can
be done to look at the consequences of the requested changes."
Board discussion was extensive. One member struggled with the fact that the bulkhead
was previously approved in 2002 and 2006, asking "how can you physically meet that
code?" Another member expressed similar concerns about conflicting evidence
regarding property elevations and potential impacts on neighbors.
A board member noted: "If they're sitting up with it, effectively, a 7 -foot wall today, and
the variance is not granted and they have to drop it to 4, and then the DEP says you can't
do that, then the homeowner's stuck."
Angela Farford stated: "I have no problem with those variances. I understand these
concerns, but those are not concerns for us today."
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 3 of 11
Ellen Golombek suggested the applicant withdraw and resolve outstanding issues,
saying: "Stormwater retention doesn't resolve all the issues. There's still runoff that goes
into neighbors' yards no matter how much retention and what kind of a retention pond
you put in."
Chair Hansen weighed in: "There's a 7 -foot wall there right now, and what they want to
do is retain that wall. So, they're not changing topographically anything." He noted
seeing a berm between properties and stated: "I feel like if we say they can't do that, it's
a little bit ex post facto here. You're changing the law and saying you can't do this
because we changed the law on you."
MOTION: After extensive debate, the board voted on the requests separately:
For the retaining wall variance:
To approve ZVAR 25-0015 with regards to the retaining walls based on "onerous effects of
regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of
improvements upon the property."
Motion: Richard Arthur
Second. Harold Gear
Kirk Hansen
Ellen Golombek
Angela Farford
Harold Gear (Seconded By)
Richard Arthur (Moved By)
Jeff Haynie
Gregory (Greg) Beliles
Motion passed 6 to 1.
MOTION. For the accessory use (deck) variance:
For
Against
For
For
For
For
For
To deny ZVAR25-0015 for the request for variance of 24-151(a) to build an accessory use prior
to having a principal use.
Motion: Harold Gear
Second. RichardArthur
Kirk Hansen Against
Ellen Golombek For
Angela Farford For
Harold Gear (Moved By) For
Richard Arthur (Seconded By) For
Jeff Haynie Against
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 4 of 11
Gregory (Greg) Beliles
Motion passed 5 to Z
For
B. 644 Beach Avenue ZVAR25-0014 (Michael Sittner)
Request for a variance from Section 24-108(e)(1) to exceed the front yard setback and
Section 24-82(b)(1) to exceed the maximum front yard projection to build a new single-
family home at 644 Beach Avenue.
Principal Planner Abrielle Genest presented a request for a variance from Section 24-
82(b)(1) to exceed the maximum front yard projection to build an open porch at 644
Beach Avenue.
Genest explained the property is located on the west side of Beach Avenue in the
residential general two-family zoning district with a single-family home currently on the
property. The lot is 50 feet wide by 78 feet deep. She noted: "This property was
developed in 1923, and this was prior to the adoption of the land development
regulations." The current first floor setback is 5 feet from the front property line, and the
second -floor setback is 0 feet with an enclosed sunroom projection. The required front
yard setback is currently 20 feet.
Originally, the applicant proposed to completely demolish the structure, but Genest
explained: "They have since revised their scope of work, and now they're planning to
preserve the first floor, take it down to the framing, demolish the second floor, and do
additions." Since they're keeping the first floor, they're not abandoning the
nonconformity and remain legal nonconforming with their setbacks.
The request is to construct a second -story porch that projects beyond the maximum
allowable 4 -foot projection. The applicant is requesting to build this second story
projection to the front of the first story, 5 feet from the front property line. Genest showed
graphics indicating the existing second story in red, proposed additions in blue (meeting
the 20 -foot setback), and the variance area in green where they want the open balcony at
5 feet instead of the allowed 16 feet.
Board member Richard disclosed ex parte communication: "The agent reached out to me
before the packet went out and just asked if I was aware of this. I hadn't seen it yet, and
we just discussed the year built and the size of the lot."
Applicant Michael Sinner explained they decided to keep the main framing for the first
floor "because we wanted a stronger application, really trying to abide by the zoning
code as best as we can." He emphasized the property was built in 1923 on a 0.09 -acre lot
that's only 80 feet deep and 50 feet wide. He argued they meet criteria 4 and 5 for the
variance: "onerous effect of regulations adopted after platting or development" and
"substandard size of a lot of record." He noted: "The 20 -foot setback as in current code
is based on a minimum hundred -foot depth lot. We're at 80 feet."
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 5 of 11
When asked about expanding the first floor, Sinner clarified: "We're not expanding the
first -floor footprint." Regarding the pool, he confirmed it would be removed but they
would abide by rear setback requirements.
During public comments, Jamie Buckland of 327 Fifth Street spoke in favor, sharing
memories of sitting on front porches in his hometown in Virginia. He stated: "It appears
to me that what the applicant is simply trying to do is take an enclosed, albeit not
compliant in today's standards with the setbacks, but take an enclosed room and turning
it into a front porch, which is, I think, lovely and exactly what we need to be promoting
in this neighborhood."
Matthew Bruce of 525 Beach Avenue, who lived next door to the property for 4 years,
also spoke in favor: "It's really been a bunker. So, we closed in the ugly, never been taken
care of." He explained they're trying to "get rid of the ugly porch in the front, get rid of
the parking that you see right now where the car can park out over the actually, the
driveway and the walkway areas, and then to make it look like a better place."
Board discussion was brief and supportive. One member noted: "I think it's a less intense
use ask. I think if you look at trying to tear down a 50 by 80 or try to build new on a 50
by 80, there'd be a lot more variance requests to meet setbacks." Another agreed it was
"making it better, not worse. It's open air. It's not enclosed.
MOTION: To approve ZVAR25-0014 on the grounds of substandard size of lot of record
warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of property.
Motion: Harold Gear
Second: Jeff Haynie
Kirk Hansen
For
Ellen Golombek
For
Angela Farford
For
Harold Gear (Moved By)
For
Richard Arthur
For
Jeff Haynie (Seconded By)
For
Gregory (Greg) Beliles
For
Motion passed 7 to 0.
C. 1804 Selva Grande Drive ZVAR25-0017 (Katherine Cole)
Request for a variance to Section 23-51 and 23-52 to reduce the required tree mitigation
for an after the fact permit at 1804 Selva Grande Drive based on an inaccurate arborist
letter.
Principal Planner Abrielle Genest presented a request for variance from Sections 23-51
and 23-52 to reduce the required tree mitigation for an after -the -fact permit at 1804 Selva
Grande Drive based on an inaccurate arborist letter.
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 6 of 11
The property is located on the corner of Saturiba Drive and Selva Grande Drive in the
residential Selva Marina zoning district. The lot is 110 feet wide by 130 feet deep. Genest
explained that Chapter 23 was created "with the purpose of enhancing, conserving,
restoring, protecting, and preserving the natural environment."
The code requires a permit for removal of any tree 8 inches or greater in diameter at
breast height. The property owner hired a company in 2024 that produced two letters
stating trees were diseased and removed them without a permit - one 25 -inch water oak
and one 9 -inch hickory. Genest explained: "When we looked at the letters that were
provided by the tree company, we did find that it did not meet the state statute exempting
it from a permit. Additionally, we did reach out to the arborist named on the report, and
he did confirm with staff that he did not write the letter."
Because regulated trees removed in violation require double mitigation, the 25 -inch
water oak requires 59 inches of mitigation and the 9 -inch hickory requires 9 inches,
totaling 68 inches or $10,200. The applicant is requesting to reduce this to the standard
ratio of 29.5 inches or $4,425.
Jeff Haynie asked about the timeline and process. Genest confirmed staff was on the
property the day trees were being removed after likely receiving a neighbor complaint
about an out-of-town tree service.
Another member asked: "Do you know when that letter was produced, this RP Arbor
reports that were found to be fraudulent?" Genest indicated it was produced within the
same week of removal, with dates around March 29, 2024.
Applicant representative Stella, who owns a pool company hired by the Coles to build a
pool, explained Mrs. Cole couldn't attend with her three young children and Mr. Cole is
a pilot out of town. She stated: "They assumed that their arborist letter was accepted."
She noted the original issue came back to light when filing for permits to remove trees
for the pool project.
Stella emphasized: "The Coles were not trying to pull a fast one. Someone came out and
gave them an arborist letter and told them that if you had an arborist letter, a permit
wasn't required." She described the tree company as fraudulent, noting they "totally
disappeared" when the Coles tried to contact them. With the pool project requiring
removal of 8 cabbage palms, the total mitigation would be $21,000. She argued: "To
plant more trees on their yard is a little bit of the hardship because if you notice the
picture of their yard, they have 62 trees on their property."
Board discussion focused on the limited grounds for granting tree variances. One
member stated: "None of the criteria meet. They want to get their money back. They
need to talk to the politicians."
Jeff Haynie expressed sympathy but noted: "I don't think there are grounds to grant this.
I also think this is not the result that the commission intended or that the code, you know,
is there for. I don't think it's the goal to punish somebody like this." He wished the
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 7 of 11
commission would consider adding broader variance grounds, noting these grounds "are
very, very limited and are not going to apply to people like this and probably others."
Ellen Golombek suggested: "I would recommend the applicant withdraw the application
and go back and resolve some of these outstanding issues."
Chair Hansen offered a different perspective: "These people aren't trying to get out of
paying any mitigation. They're prepared to pay the mitigation for the trees... somebody
did them wrong... When somebody comes up from South Daytona and starts preying on
our citizens here, I want to protect them."
MOTION: To deny ZVAR 25-0017 as there are no criteria met.
Motion: Harold Gear
Second: Jeff Haynie
Kirk Hansen
Against
Ellen Golombek
For
Angela Farford
For
Harold Gear (Moved By)
For
Richard Arthur
Against
Jeff Haynie (Seconded By)
For
Gregory (Greg) Belifles
For
Motion passed S to Z
D. Stormwater Text Amendment Change
ORDINANCE NO. 90-25-257: An Ordinance of the City of Atlantic Beach, County of
Duval, State of Florida, Hereby amending the Land Development Regulations as adopted
by Ordinance Number 90-24-253, including all amendments thereto; this ordinance
specifically amending Section 24-89, Stormwater, Drainage, Storage and Treatment
requirements, providing recordation and providing an effective date.
Director Amanda Askew presented proposed changes to stormwater regulations. She
explained the Community Development Board had previously recommended different
language, but the Commission felt removing on-site stormwater requirements entirely
before the stormwater study was completed was premature. The proposed compromise
would delete the 400 square foot trigger and add a trigger for anything over 35%
impervious requiring on-site stormwater for the difference between 35% and 45%.
Askew noted a potential issue: "If you come in and you have, you're wanting to add a
shed and the shed is a hundred square feet, you technically would have to have storm
water requirements for those hundred square feet."
Board discussion was critical of the proposed language. Richard Arthur asked about the
level 3 alteration definition, concerned it could trigger stormwater requirements for
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 8 of 11
interior renovations. One member worried: "If you put in new flooring in the house,
would that be a hundred percent of the house?"
Jeff Haynie stated: "I mean, I would say 3 times this board has recommended removal
of the entire ordinance and, you know, 2 from this board and 1 from a completely
different board makeup." He noted staff wanted to keep requirements while
acknowledging the 35% came from "legend and folklore" of original city maximums.
He emphasized: "You know, as the planner set out here, we're the only city, which I think
there's 7 out of 411 that have this for residential."
Chair Hansen expressed frustration: "Do we have to say this at all? We've got 45 percent
impervious surface ratio. As long as we're 45 percent, why don't we just get on with
life?" He added: "All we're doing is making it more difficult and saying, if you wanna
add on, we're not even gonna let you have 45 percent. We're not even gonna let you have
35 percent. It's like, come on. That's just silly."
Jeff Haynie warned: "I'm afraid it's becoming kind of a Frankenstein if we just keep on
adding." Another member agreed: "Basically, you've got a trigger at 35 now where
before you could have been at 35. And you added 400, and it put it into 40. But now all
of a sudden, with this one, it's making it more over."
MOTION: To recommend to the City Commission that they remove Section 24-89(c)l in its
entirety.
Motion: Harold Gear
Second: Jeff Haynie
Kirk Hansen
For
Ellen Golombek
Against
Angela Farford
Against
Harold Gear (Moved By)
For
Richard Arthur
For
Jeff Haynie (Seconded By)
For
Gregory (Greg) Beliles
For
Motion passed S to Z
E. Shared Parking Text Amendment Change
ORDINANCE NO. 90-25-258: An Ordinance of the City of Atlantic Beach, County of
Duval, State of Florida, Hereby amending the Land Development Regulations as adopted
by Ordinance Number 90-24-253, including all amendments thereto; this ordinance
specifically amending Section 24-161, Off-street Parking and Loading, providing
recordation and providing an effective date.
Director Amanda Askew presented proposed language to allow on-site shared parking,
noting this arose from the 42 East Coast variance request. The proposed text would
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 9 of 11
establish procedures for on-site shared parking when two or more uses on the same parcel
would utilize spaces at different times.
Chair Hansen questioned why not simply add "on-site" to the existing off-site shared
parking provisions. Discussion revealed the off-site provisions were minimal - just
stating parking may be permitted on property other than where the use is located.
Board members debated whether to combine on-site and off-site provisions. Richard
noted the language refers to "the same parcel" which wouldn't work for off-site. The
attorney explained: "The whole purpose of this language is to allow for on-site shared
parking, and this is what this accomplishes."
One member expressed concern about the provision that businesses must stop operating
if shared parking is lost, asking "What about a 30 -day grace period?" Askew suggested
most agreements would have termination clauses built in.
Another member worried: "This says that they could also use those spaces. Am I reading
that incorrectly?" regarding multiple businesses sharing the same spaces. She suggested
limiting on-site shared parking to just two businesses rather than multiple.
Director Askew warned: "Staff has grave concerns, and that would be tracking this over
time. And as businesses ebb and flow, I mean, it would be difficult to track." She noted
it would be challenging to monitor when businesses change or new tenants arrive.
After extensive debate about enforcement challenges and potential for abuse, one
member stated: "As much as I hate to have resources wasted, which I think our resources
are wasted when you have an opportunity for temporally sharing things, I see the
Pandora's box of trying to manage this."
MOTION. To recommend adoption of the suggested language for Section 24-161(g)(3) as
presented.
Motion: Jeff Haynie
Second. Richard Arthur
Kirk Hansen
For
Ellen Golombek
For
Angela Farford
For
Harold Gear
Against
Richard Arthur (Seconded By)
For
Jeff Haynie (Moved By)
For
Gregory (Greg) Beliles
For
Motion passed 6 to 1.
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 10 of 11
5.
6.
7.
Attest:
REPORTS
A. Backyard Hen Discussion
Director Amanda Askew explained that Commissioner Ring asked the city manager to
look at potentially allowing backyard hens on duplexes and townhomes. Currently, code
only allows them on single-family homes. Research showed most municipalities require
single-family homes and/or minimum lot sizes.
When asked about current permits, Director Askew confirmed there are 5 permits for
hens in the city. There is no lot size minimum currently, though other cities like Neptune
Beach and Jacksonville Beach require 5,000 square feet minimum.
Richard Arthur disclosed he has permit number 3. Board consensus was to keep
regulations as -is. One member stated: "I don't think multifamily dwellings or duplexes
or townhomes, that's infringing on... There's no setbacks with those homes." Another
agreed about West Atlantic Beach having "small lots, duplexes."
The board reached consensus to report back to the City Commission that they don't think
the regulations should be extended to townhouses and that the code should remain as is,
restricting hens to single-family homes, due to concerns about space limitations and
potential conflicts with neighbors on smaller lots and in multi -family settings.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
1?andja Aske!T_
Or
Kirk Hansen, Chair
Community Development Board (CDB)
August 26, 2025
Page 11 of 11