Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-17-26 CDB Adopted MinutesMINUTES Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting Tuesday, February 17, 2026 - 6:00 PM City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Kirk Hansen, Chair Gregory (Greg) Beliles, Member Ellen Golombek, Vice Chair Richard Arthur, Member Jeff Haynie, Member Frederick Ferrin, Member Douglas Moody, First Alternate Member Also Present: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Department Dir. (NDD) Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk Payton Jamieson, Principal Planner (PP) 1. 2. 3. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve minutes of the January 20, 2026 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. MOTION. • To APPROVE the minutes of the January 20, 2026 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second. Gregory (Greg) Beliles Motion passed 7 to 0. OLD BUSINESS A. 356 Main Street ZVAR25-0036 (Salt Air Homes LLC) Request for a variance to Section 24-89(d) for floodplain storage so that there is no net loss of storage for areas in a special flood hazard area, where a base flood elevation has been defined by FEMA on the FIRM maps. Director of Neighborhoods Amanda Askew presented the case for 356 Main Street, which was deferred from the previous month's meeting. She explained that this property and the adjacent 360 Main Street (which would be presented together) were requesting variances to Section 24-89(d) for floodplain storage so that there is no net loss of storage for areas in a special flood hazard area. Community Development Board (CDB) February 17, 2026 Page 1 of 10 Director Askew explained that both properties are located on the west side of Main Street, north of Atlantic and east of Mayport Road, and are zoned residential general two-family. Previously, this was one lot with one house that was demolished, creating two lots that meet the zoning code requirements at 50 feet wide by 102 feet deep. The applicant planned to build two single-family homes, one on each lot. The properties are located within the AE flood zone, connected to the Intracoastal Waterway System. Director Askew explained that floodplain compensation storage requires no net loss for areas in special flood hazard areas where base flood elevation has been defined by FEMA on FIRM maps. She noted the difference between riverine flooding (where compensation is important because filling land can raise flood levels) and coastal flooding from the Intracoastal Waterway (where small amounts of fill for homes won't meaningfully change flood heights). Director Askew indicated that the applicant provided signed and sealed plans and calculations documenting that the no net loss requirement is met, and the property will not have an adverse impact on storage capacity in the floodplain. City Engineer Steve Swann had reviewed and concurred that there would not be a loss of storage because the Intracoastal water body is infinite. Richard Arthur questioned the need for a variance if the engineer had already confirmed that there would be no net loss as required by code. Director Askew and City Attorney Robert Graham clarified that while the engineer confirmed no net loss would occur due to proximity to the Intracoastal, the code technically requires on-site mitigation. The variance was needed because they weren't providing on-site storage to mitigate for the fill. The applicant, Oliver Kraut from Salt Air Homes, and a representative from Diamond Civil and Survey briefly addressed the board, confirming they were directly connected to the Intracoastal, an infinite source of water, and that the area is a hydraulically open tidal system. During courtesy of the floor, Jessica Civello, a community member, spoke in opposition to the variance. She argued that the code was written on a parcel -by -parcel basis to protect properties from collectively harming neighborhoods, and that removing this requirement would be careless stewardship of the land. She noted that even with the Intracoastal being considered an "infinite body of water," the area had experienced significant flooding during king tides and nor'easters. MOTION. • To APPROVE ZVAR25-0036 and ZVAR25-0038 based on exceptional topographic conditions at or near the property. Motion: Frederick Ferrin Second: Richard Arthur Kirk Hansen Gregory (Greg) Beliles For For Community Development Board (CDB) February 17, 2026 Page 2 of 10 Ellen Golombek For Richard Arthur (Seconded By) For Jeff Haynie Against Frederick Ferrin (Moved By) For Douglas Moody For Motion passed 6 to 1. B. 360 Main Street ZVAR25-0038 (Salt Air Homes LLC) Request for a variance to Section 24-89(d) for floodplain storage so that there is no net loss of storage for areas in a special flood hazard area, where a base flood elevation has been defined by FEMA on the FIRM maps. This variance request was considered simultaneously with the previous item for 356 Main Street, as they involved identical circumstances and the same applicant. The board's discussion and vote covered both properties. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. 340 Sailfish Drive ZVAR25-0035 (Michael Mullahey) Request for a variance to Section 24-105(e) to reduce required plated side setback from 25 feet to 18.6 feet on the comer side yard. Principal Planner and Environmental Coordinator Payton Jamieson presented the variance request for 340 Sailfish Drive. The applicant was requesting a variance to Section 24-105(e) to reduce the required platted side setback from 25 feet to 18.6 feet for the comer side yard. Planner Jamieson explained that the property is zoned residential single-family (RS -1) and was originally developed in 1961. The variance concerned a nonconforming existing carport that was encroaching on the platted Building Restriction Line (BRL). The proposed work involved renovating the existing carport into living space. Since the carport was currently nonconforming and the use was changing from an open structure to enclosed living space, it required approval from the Community Development Board even though the footprint wasn't expanding. Planner Jamieson noted that the BRL line is 25 feet for both street frontages, but the carport/proposed addition would be only 18.6 feet from the property line. She explained that according to Section 24-105(e), where the platted building restriction line is greater than the minimum yards listed, the building restriction line shall be enforced. She also provided history about BRL lines in the Royal Palms subdivision, noting that in 2009, the commission requested an amendment to apply the 20 -foot zoning restriction instead of the 25 -foot platted line, but the legal process to change the BRL line requires approval from over 600 property owners. Community Development Board (CDB) February 17, 2026 Page 3 of 10 The applicant briefly addressed the board, stating they had submitted plans to add a master bedroom in the carport space and were under the impression they would be able to use the existing footprint. They also mentioned they would be removing concrete walkways on the left side of the house to reduce impervious area. After discussion, the board determined that the diagonal home situated on a comer lot with double frontage presented exceptional circumstances. MOTION: To APPROVE ZVAR25-0035 based on exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property. Motion: Gregory (Greg) Beliles Second: Jeff Haynie Kirk Hansen Against Gregory (Greg) Beliles (Moved By) For Ellen Golombek Against Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Seconded By) For Frederick Ferrin For Douglas Moody For Motion passed S to 2. B. 654 Ocean Boulevard ZVAR26-0001 (Roy and Amy Saunders) Request for a variance to Section 24-151 (k) to reduce required 5 -foot setback for mechanical (pool) equipment. Director of Neighborhoods Amanda Askew presented the variance request for 654 Ocean Boulevard. The applicant was requesting a variance to Section 24-151(k) to reduce the required 5 -foot setback for mechanical (pool) equipment. Director Askew explained that the property is zoned residential single-family RS -2, and the applicant was proposing to place pool equipment 1 foot 6 inches to 2 feet from the property line, rather than the required 5 -foot setback. She noted that the property already had existing mechanical equipment (AC units and a generator) in the side yard that predated the current code requirements. The applicant, Russ Burke from Clarkson Pools, addressed the board on behalf of the owners. He explained that the ACs were permitted and moved in 2022, and the house itself was only 4 feet 6 inches off the side property line. He noted that the pool equipment would be in the same footprint as the AC units and would be no closer to the side yard than existing equipment. He also mentioned that the property had a 100 -year-old garage in the back that couldn't be touched for historical reasons, limiting placement options. Community Development Board (CDB) February 17,2026 Page 4 of 10 When asked about the noise level of the equipment, Mr. Burke explained that due to Florida energy code, they would be using variable speed pumps that are about 20 decibels quieter than AC units, and that no one would hear the pool pump over the two AC units already running. Chair Hansen read a letter from a neighbor to the south who had no objections to the request, although he noted the equipment would be on the north side of the property. During discussion, Chair Hansen observed that there might be plenty of other places to locate the equipment besides in the 5 -foot setback but acknowledged that the board had previously allowed equipment in setbacks when there was already other equipment there. MOTION. To APPROVE ZVAR26-0001 based on exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property. Motion: Richard Arthur Second: Frederick Ferrin Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Ellen Golombek Against Richard Arthur (Moved By) For Jeff Haynie Against Frederick Ferrin (Seconded By) For Douglas Moody For Motion passed S to 2. C. 1810 George Street ZVAR26-0002 (Randy Rhone) Request for a variance to Section 24-151(c)(2) which limits the number of accessory structures allowed on a single and two-family property to one shed. Director Amanda Askew presented the variance request for 1810 George Street. The applicant was requesting a variance to Section 24-151(c)(2), which limits the number of accessory structures allowed on a single and two-family property to one shed. Director Askew explained that this property is a through lot with frontage on both George Street and Park Street, zoned residential general 2 -family (RG). The existing use is a single-family home built in 1955. The property has two existing sheds, which was discovered through an active code enforcement case. The property owner was taking steps to come into compliance with code enforcement, and the special magistrate had allowed them to go through due process by seeking a variance. Director Askew noted that they don't have existing permits for any sheds on the property, but much of the property predates their records and code requirements. She presented Community Development Board (CDB) February 17,2026 Page 5 of 10 aerial photos from 1969, 1975, and 1993 showing the property over time, as well as current photos of the two existing sheds. The applicant, Randy Rhone, addressed the board and explained that the sheds had been there for about 50 years. He stated he was not aware of the code requirements and was trying to understand what he needed to do to get things straightened out. MOTION. To APPROVE ZVAR26-0002 based on onerous effective regulations enacted after platting. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Frederick Ferrin Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Ellen Golombek For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Frederick Ferrin (Seconded By) For Douglas Moody For Motion passed 7 to 0. D. 1890 Live Oak Lane ZVAR26-0003 (Genevieve Hickey) Request for a variance to Section 23-33 of code for required tree mitigation. Planner Jamieson presented the variance request for 1890 Live Oak Lane. The applicant was requesting a variance to Section 23-33 of code for required tree mitigation, specifically to reduce the required mitigation for a southern magnolia tree from 142 inches to 24 inches. Planner Jamieson provided an extensive history of the case, explaining that it involved unpermitted tree removal dating back to 2024. An after -the -fact tree permit was submitted in February 2025 for three trees that were removed: a water oak, an 8 -inch palm, and a 35.5 -inch magnolia tree. Staff determined that the water oak required no mitigation, but the palm and magnolia did require mitigation. The case was complicated by the fact that a survey later showed the magnolia tree was actually on the adjacent property at 358 19th Street, not on the applicant's property at 1890 Live Oak Lane. However, staff determined that mitigation would be assessed from the people who cut the trees. Planner Jamieson explained the city's tree mitigation calculations, which involved two components: the standard mitigation ratio based on the tree's diameter at breast height (DBH), and a penalty for cutting trees without a permit that doubles the mitigation amount. For the magnolia tree, the total mitigation required was 142 inches (35.5 inches Community Development Board (CDB) February 17,2026 Page 6 of 10 x 2 mitigation ratio x 2 penalty for unpermitted removal), and for the palm tree, it was 8 inches, for a total of 150 inches or $22,500. She noted that an arborist report submitted by the applicant was deemed insufficient because it was based only on photographs rather than an in-person inspection as required by Florida State Statute 163.045. The Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) had recommended single mitigation (without doubling for the penalty) if the applicant appealed to the CDB. The applicants, Genevieve and Jeff Covington, addressed the board and explained that the trees were cut after a tree service company working on a neighboring property pointed out that the magnolia had a large hole and was leaning dangerously over their property. They stated they thought they only needed permits for oak trees, not diseased magnolia trees. Mrs. Covington emphasized that they weren't cutting trees for aesthetic purposes or to build on the property and felt the $22,500 punishment was excessive for what they characterized as a diseased tree. Mr. Covington clarified that the arborist report was dated March 2025 because that's when they were first notified of the code violation, months after the trees were cut in September 2024. He also stated that the ESC had recommended 24 inches of mitigation with no doubling. The adjacent property owners, Mike and Amy Smith, spoke in opposition to the variance. They stated that the trees were on their property and were cut without their knowledge or consent. They had hired their own arborist who examined the stumps and confirmed there was no widespread rot or structural defects. They argued that the Covington should not receive further reduction in mitigation fees and that the city's tree policy should be consistently enforced. After extensive discussion, the board clarified their options: they could deny the variance (resulting in the full double mitigation), approve the variance for 24 inches as requested by the applicant, or approve a lesser variance consistent with the ESC recommendation for single mitigation of 71 inches for the magnolia and 4 inches for the palm. MOTION: To APPROVE ZVAR26-0003 to a limited extent of a lesser variance than requested, specifically to require single mitigation of 71 inches for the magnolia tree and 4 inches for the palm tree as recommended by the Environmental Stewardship Committee. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Frederick Ferrin Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Ellen Golombek Against Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Frederick Ferrin (Seconded By) For Community Development Board (CDB) February 17, 2026 Page 7 of 10 Douglas Moody Motion passed 6 to 1. For E. 950 Begonia Street ZVAR26-0004 (Cary Quick) Request for a variance to Section 24-252(c) which requires developers to provide access to paved streets for development parcel (one -single family dwelling). Director Askew presented the variance request for 950 Begonia Street. The applicant was requesting a variance to Section 24-252(c), which requires developers to provide access to paved streets for development parcels. Director Askew explained that the property is zoned residential single family and is currently vacant. The applicant was proposing to place a new home on the property, which is accessed primarily off Begonia Street. Begonia Street is partially paved up to around Ninth Street West, after which it becomes an unpaved right-of-way. She showed photos of the area, noting that several streets in the vicinity dead-end where the pavement stops, although the right-of-way continues. She explained that the code requires every lot or development parcel to have access to a paved street, and it's the developer's responsibility to design, construct, and pave streets accordingly. The intent is to prevent developers from burdening the city or taxpayers for development infrastructure. The applicant, Cary Quick, addressed the board, explaining that he was drawn to the property because of its remote location and "old Florida feel." He stated that paving the road would require removing several trees and adding impervious surface. He noted that the unpaved road serves only three houses (one existing, his planned home, and potentially one more), and beyond that point, a tributary from the marsh runs across the road right-of-way, which would require a bridge to continue. During courtesy of the floor, Chair Hansen read a letter from Cody Dubin, who owns vacant lots at the end of Begonia Street and opposed the variance, arguing it would restrict access to his property and limit future use of his land. Two residents, Jessica and Tyler Ring, owners of 1002 Begonia Street and an adjacent vacant lot, spoke in support of the variance. They explained that the area floods badly during high tides and storms, and paving would affect the flooding situation. Mr. Ring, who works in fire rescue, stated that emergency vehicles can access the area via the existing unpaved road, and there are no safety concerns. After discussion, the board determined that the exceptional topographic conditions, including flooding issues and proximity to marsh, warranted approval of the variance. MOTION. To APPROVE ZVAR26-0004 based on exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. Community Development Board (CDB) February 17, 2026 Page 8 of 10 Motion: Richard Arthur Second: Ellen Golombek Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Ellen Golombek (Seconded By) For Richard Arthur (Moved By) For Jeff Haynie For Frederick Ferrin For Douglas Moody For Motion passed 7 to 0. F. 305 20th Street ZVAR26-0005 (Tom Shaw) Request for a variance to Section 24-117 of code for Selva Gardens PUD, to reduce rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet and to exceed 45% lot coverage. Director Askew presented the variance request for 305 20th Street. The applicant was requesting a variance to Section 24-117 of code for Selva Gardens PUD, to reduce the rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet and to exceed 45% lot coverage (existing conditions). Director Askew explained that the property is located at the corner of Seminole and 20th Street within a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant was proposing to build an unenclosed porch off the rear of the home, which would encroach into the required 20 -foot rear yard setback, leaving 14 feet between the porch and the property line. She noted that the proposed addition would be built over an existing concrete patio, so there would be no net increase in impervious surface. However, there is no increase in lot coverage. The applicant, Tom Shaw, addressed the board and explained that the concrete patio had been there for years before he purchased the home. He stated that building a covered porch was not out of character for the neighborhood, as numerous homes have enclosed rooms well within the 20 -foot setback. He explained that the side and front yards were not suitable for a porch due to traffic and lack of privacy from Seminole Road and 20th Street. Mr. Shaw mentioned that he had spoken with all his immediate neighbors, who supported his request, and he had letters from them. He also noted that his yard slopes about 5 feet from west to east and adding gutters to the porch would help reroute water flow. Additionally, he stated that the backyard has no tree coverage, making the patio uncomfortable to use for much of the year. During discussion, Chair Hansen noted that the house was built in 1982, likely before the PUD was established, meaning the regulations changed after the house was built. Community Development Board (CDB) February 17, 2026 Page 9 of 10 5. 6. 7. Attest: MOTION. To APPROVE ZVAR26-0005 based on onerous effective regulations enacted after platting or development of the property. Motion: Ellen Golombek Second. Douglas Moody Kirk Hansen For Gregory (Greg) Beliles For Ellen Golombek (Moved By) For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie For Frederick Ferrin For Douglas Moody (Seconded By) For Motion passed 7 to 0. REPORTS There were no reports. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Amanda Askew Ark Hansen, Chair Community Development Board (CDB) February 17, 2026 Page 10 of 10