Loading...
11-18-25 CDB Adopted Minutes�1iir MINUTES ri ;_. }; Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting Tuesday, November 18, 2025 - 6:00 PM City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Kirk Hansen, Chair Ellen Golombek, Vice Chair Harold Gear, Member Richard Arthur, Member Jeff Haynie, Member Gregory (Greg) Beliles, Alternate Member Absent: Jennifer Lagner, Member Angela Farford, Member Also Present: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Department Dir. (NDD) Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk Rob Graham, City Attorney (CA) Kevin Auster, Planner 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 October 21, 2025 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. MOTION: To APPROVE the October 21, 2025 regular meeting minutes. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Richard Arthur Kirk Hansen For Ellen Golombek For Harold Gear For Richard Arthur (Seconded By) For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Motion passed 6 to 0. Community Development Board (CDB) November 18, 2025 Page 1 of 8 3. OLD BUSINESS A. 0 Sturdivant Avenue ZVAR25-0023 (Target 4 LLC) Request for a variance to Section 23-51(d)(2) and Section 23-33(b) to reduce the total amount of mitigation owed at 0 Sturdivant Avenue. Planner Auster presented a request for variance to Section 23-33(b) and Section 23- 51(d)(2) to grant relief from the tree mitigation requirement at 0 Sturdivant Avenue. The property is zoned commercial general, located on the south side of Sturdivant Avenue, measuring 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep. The timeline of events revealed that in April 2025, staff noticed unpermitted work and removal of a tree. Code enforcement sent a violation letter. In May 2025, the applicant submitted an after -the -fact permit claiming removal of an 8 -inch diameter maple tree. However, staffs assessment based on a 2022 survey showed the tree was actually 38 inches DBH (diameter at breast height), as it was a multi -trunk tree where the four largest trunks are added together. The applicant appealed Staff assessment to the Environmental Stewardship Committee but was denied. Due to the unpermitted removal, double mitigation applies, resulting in 152 inches of required mitigation instead of the normal 76 inches. The applicant requested to reduce this requirement to 38 inches, stating they wanted to plant as many trees on-site as physically possible without paying into the tree fund. Planting 38 inches would equal approximately eight 5 -inch caliper trees, while 152 inches would equal approximately thirty-one 5 -inch caliper trees. Mr. Haynie asked about the ESC appeal. Planner Auster clarified it was about the DBH measurement dispute - the applicant claimed 8 inches while staff determined 38 inches based on the survey. Mr. Arthur inquired about grounds for approval under section 23-18. Planner Auster explained that the fourth option refers to designing plans around trees rather than removing them after the fact. The applicant, Zain Jazrawi, explained he owns 0 Sturdivant Avenue. He acknowledged the 152 -inch mitigation requirement but stated his 0.115 -acre lot is entirely paved as a parking lot with three water meters, electric boxes, and overhead utility lines. Mr. Jazrawi argued it's not feasible or safe to plant 152 inches of large maritime canopy trees on site. He wasn't aware of the permit requirements. The tree was removed to create two additional parking spaces with pavers to retain tenants, as they were losing tenants due to insufficient parking. He requested approval to plant 38 inches of maritime species on- site (the maximum the parcel can support) and relief for the remaining requirement. When asked by Mr. Haynie, Mr. Jazrawi confirmed the tree was removed solely to create more parking spaces. He had submitted an after -the -fact permit for the paver installation as well. Community Development Board (CDB) November 18, 2025 Page 2 of 8 4. Director Askew clarified that planting is allowed in the right-of-way with approval, within a quarter -mile of the property, or payment into the tree fund. The current per - caliper -inch rate is $181. Maritime species receive extra credit under the code. During board discussion, Mr. Gear expressed concern about the double penalty that was just applied to another applicant. Chair Hansen distinguished this case as different since the first applicant made no attempt to get permits. No members could identify grounds for approval under the criteria. MOTION. To DENY ZVAR25-0023 due to it not meeting any of the criteria for approval. Motion: Harold Gear Second. Ellen Golombek Kirk Hansen For Ellen Golombek (Seconded By) For Harold Gear (Moved By) For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Motion passed 6 to 0. NEW BUSINESS A. 34014th Street West ZVAR25-0029 (Cody Fonder) Request for a variance to Section 23-51(d)(2) and Section 23-33(b) to reduce the total amount of mitigation owed at 340 14th Street West. Director Askew, presented a request for variance to Section 23-33(b) and Section 23- 51(d)(2) to grant relief from tree mitigation requirements for a residential property zoned Residential General 2 -Family. In 2023, the applicants received a permit to build a detached garage and were required to install a stormwater pond. However, they removed five 20 -inch pine trees without a permit, triggering an after -the -fact permit requirement with double mitigation. The total mitigation required is 200 inches. The applicant had been working with Staff on a payment plan to plant 50 inches every three months. They planted 54 inches of cedar trees but did not continue with the plan. The remaining mitigation owed is 146 inches. The trees planted didn't meet the minimum height requirement of 8 feet, and additional fruit trees planted don't count toward mitigation requirements per code. At current rates of $181 per caliper inch, the remaining mitigation would cost $26,426. Cody Fonder, the applicant, explained they believed removal of the pine trees was included in their garage permit and were unaware of the separate tree permit requirement. Community Development Board (CDB) November 18, 2025 Page 3 of 8 He cited concerns about underground plumbing, sewer lines, electrical conduits, and proximity to foundations as preventing safe installation of additional trees. He emphasized his love for Atlantic Beach where he's raising his two children and apologized for not initially obtaining the permit. Ms. Golombek questioned whether applicants are required to show existing trees on building permits, with Amanda confirming there's a checkbox on applications. Mr. Haynie inquired about the timeline, learning that two trees were removed for the garage construction and others for the stormwater area. Discussion revealed the applicant thought tree removal was covered under the overall project permits. Applicant's wife Joanna Fonder added that the drainage area wasn't in the original plan. When they submitted changes for appropriate drainage, they weren't informed about tree applications or requirements. During board deliberation, members struggled with the $26,000 financial burden while acknowledging the violation. Jeff Haynie cited the ordinance language about "exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship." Mr. Beliles suggested reducing the mitigation from 200 to 100 inches as a compromise, recognizing the applicant's good faith effort in obtaining other permits. Mr. Arthur supported this approach, stating it differentiated from the previous case where no permits were sought. The board discussed allowing the standard mitigation of 100 inches rather than the doubled amount, requiring an additional 46 inches to be planted within 12 months. Robert Graham, City Attorney, reminded the board they must determine that granting the request would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and would not be inconsistent with the general intent of chapter 23. The board agreed that to grant this request would not cause substantial detriment to the public good. MOTION: To APPROVE ZVAR25-0029 but adjust the mitigation requirement to 100 inches total, requiring 46 additional inches of maritime species to be planted within 12 months, either on-site or within Atlantic Beach code allowances. Motion: Gregory (Greg) Beliles Second: Richard Arthur Kirk Hansen For Ellen Golombek For Harold Gear For Richard Arthur (Seconded By) For Jeff Haynie For Gregory (Greg) Beliles (Moved By) For Motion passed 6 to 0. Community Development Board (CDB) November 18, 2025 Page 4 of 8 B. 1812 Sea Oats Drive ZVAR25-0031 (James West) Request for a variance to Section 24-109(f) to reduce the rear yard setback at 1812 Sea Oats Drive. Planner Auster presented a request to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet for building an addition at 1812 Sea Oats Drive. The property is on the west side of Sea Oaks Drive, zoned Residential Selva Marina (RSM). Planner Auster provided background on Selva Marina, explaining it was platted as a planned unit development (PUD) in the 1970s. The PUD ordinance was established in 1972 when the city lacked a comprehensive plan. In 1982, the zoning code update eliminated PUD requirements. Between 1982 and 2018, staff enforced RS -1 setbacks, resulting in 75 of 224 lots becoming nonconforming. In 2018, when Staff proposed rezoning to RS -1, the community opposed it to preserve the area's unique character. Staff then created a new zoning district maintaining original setbacks, minimum house sizes, and fence requirements. The applicant proposes a rear addition 10 feet from the property line, encroaching 20 feet into the required 30 -foot setback. Mr. Haynie asked if the lot had unique characteristics or substandard size. Planner Auster indicated it was similar to surrounding lots on Sea Oaks Drive with no significant unique factors. Applicant James West explained he's lived in Atlantic Beach his whole life and had four homes here. He said this house hasn't been occupied in 15 years, requiring complete interior demolition. The awkward layout with the garage pushed forward forces the house back on the lot. They want to expand living space without changing the footprint except for the rear addition. Architect Michael Munn showed architectural plans, explaining they're improving livability while maintaining neighborhood character. The addition area has no trees and won't challenge permeability restrictions. They'll actually increase overall permeability. He noted similar additions exist on neighboring properties and that 10 -foot setbacks are typical throughout Atlantic Beach. The courtyard driveway configuration pushes everything back, and the desired primary bedroom suite addition drove the design. Mr. Haynie questioned the significant variance from 30 to 10 feet. Mr. West explained the house's current position at the back setback line means expansion would require going forward, necessitating roof demolition and making remodeling unreasonable. Mr. Munn added the original architectural configuration and desired bedroom addition determined the dimensions. Mr. Arthur feels that surrounding properties have 20 -foot setbacks while this street uniquely has 30 -foot setbacks. Community Development Board (CDB) November 18, 2025 Page 5 of 8 During board discussion, Mr. Haynie stated he struggled to see applicable grounds for variance, noting other properties' variances or noncompliance doesn't constitute grounds under criterion 2. Chair Hansen suggested they could grant a lesser variance to 20 feet for consistency with previous decisions, though acknowledged this might be insufficient for the applicant's needs. Mr. Arthur agreed he could support a 20 -foot setback as standard but struggled with justifying 10 feet based on the grounds provided. MOTION: To DENY ZVAR25-0031 due to it not meeting any criteria for approval. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Richard Arthur Kirk Hansen For Ellen Golombek For Harold Gear For Richard Arthur (Seconded By) For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Gregory (Greg) Belles For Motion passed 6 to 0. C. 1875 Beach Avenue ZVAR25-0032 (Michael Dunlap) Request for a variance to Section 24-85(b)(4) to expand an existing nonconforming use of land, Section 24-108(e)(2) to exceed the minimum rear setback (Beach Avenue), and Section 24-108(e)(3) to exceed the minimum side setback and Section 24-162 to exceed the maximum driveway width. Director Askew presented a request for variance to expand an existing nonconforming land use by exceeding minimum rear yard and side yard setbacks and maximum driveway width. The property is located on Beach Avenue just north of the 18th Street beach access, zoned Residential General 2 -Family. The property is technically nonconforming as it doesn't meet current setbacks. The oldest building permit on file is from 1987 for significant remodeling, but no site plans exist. Historical aerial photos from 1960 show the primary structure, and the oldest survey from 2005 shows the structure with attached garage in its current location. In 2015, an after -the -fact variance for fence height was issued. The existing garage is nonconforming, with one comer 7 inches from the property line and the northern comer 2.1 feet from the property line. On oceanfront properties, the ocean side is considered the front yard and Beach Avenue is the rear yard. The applicants propose to step back an addition over the garage to 2.66 feet at the southwest comer and 4.4 feet at the other comer. They also need variance for stairs encroaching into setbacks and to exceed the 20 -foot maximum driveway width at the right-of-way. Community Development Board (CDB) November 18, 2025 Page 6 of 8 5. 6. Michael Dunlap, the architect, provided historical context showing the property was originally built in 1962 as a bathhouse for Taylor Hardwick's office building staff. He clarified that the existing garage would be demolished and rebuilt with new construction occupying 872 square feet compared to the current 921 square feet. The west face would be moved back several feet. The driveway addition would use a product called Grass Road or Grass Crete that appears as grass but provides vehicular access with 50% permeability. The existing 350 square feet of concrete driveway would be replaced with 504 square feet of grass Crete, actually increasing pervious area. Ms. Golombek questioned whether the nonconforming portion of the garage would remain, with Director Askew confirming the new construction would still be nonconforming but slightly improved. Mr. Haynie clarified that despite the rebuild, variances were still needed as it remained nonconforming. During board discussion, Mr. Arthur noted similar requests had been seen on 18th and 19th Streets for driveways and garage setbacks. He viewed this as moving toward greater conformity while allowing reasonable use of the property. He made a motion to approve based on exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of property compared to others in the area. Mr. Haynie questioned what made this property exceptionally different from others, struggling with the large property size. Mr. Arthur argued that holding a nonconforming property to strict compliance without allowing any improvements conflicts with reasonable use, and this request moves toward more conformity without expanding the nonconformity. MOTION. To APPROVE ZVAR25-0032 based on exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of property compared to other properties in the area. Motion: Richard Arthur Second: Harold Gear Kirk Hansen Against Ellen Golonihek For Harold Gear (Seconded By) For Richard Arthur (Moved By) For Jeff Haynie Against Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Motion passed 4 to 2. REPORTS There were no reports. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. Community Development Board (CDB) November 18, 2025 Page 7of8 7. Attest: ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. G Amanda Askew Kirk Hansen, Chair Community Development Board (CDB) November 18, 2025 Page 8 of 8