Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-21-26 CDB Adopted MinutesMINUTES s r Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting Tuesday, April 21, 2026 - 6:00 PM City HallCommission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Nancy Staats, Alternate Member Kirk Hansen, Chair Rick Ferrin, Member Richard Arthur, Member Jeff Haynie, Member Doug Moody, Member Absent: Kelly Elmore, Member Gregory (Greg) Beliles, Member Ellen Golombek, Vice Chair Also Present: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Department Dir. (NDD) Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk Payton Jamieson, Principal Planner (PP) Rob Graham, City Attorney (CA) 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve minutes of the March 17, 2026 regular meeting of the Community, Development Board. MOTION: To APPROVE the minutes of the March 17, 2026 regular meeting of the Community Development Board Motion: Rick Ferrin Second. Jeff Haynie Nancy Staats For Kirk Hansen For Rick Ferrin (Moved By) For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Seconded By) For Doug Moody For Motion passed 6 to 0. Community Development Board (CDB) April 21, 2026 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. 1554 Linkside Drive ZVAR26-0007 (Patricia Wallace) Request for a variance to Selva Linkside PUD, which states lot coverage shall not exceed the standards imposed by the City of Atlantic Beach. Current residential lot coverage is limited to45% impervious area. Director of Neighborhoods, Amanda Askew, presented the case, explaining that this was ZVAR 26-007 for 1554 Linkside Drive, which she corrected to be a request for a variance to the Selva Linkside plan PUD unit development did not address lot coverage, but COAB zoning codes limit it to 45%. Director Askew provided extensive background, noting that Selva Linkside was a PUD created in 1988, with this single-family home built on the property in 1993. She explained that unpermitted work was not uncommon in this community, patios have expanded over time. The current lot coverage was 73.3 percent, but Director Askew emphasized that the current homeowner just purchased the property in 2025 and is not responsible for any of the unpermitted work. She explained that the Selva Linkside PUD development did not establish maximum lot coverage requirements in the PUD regulations, so it reverted back to the base residential zoning district, which limits lot coverage to 45 percent. Director Askew described the current situation with a side entry garage that typically required more pavement for maneuverability. The applicants were proposing to replace the driveway with permeable pavers and replace significant amounts of non -permeable pavers in the back with gravel. The whole issue came to light when they applied for a spa to be built, and staff determined the property was over lot coverage. The proposal would reduce lot coverage from 73.5 percent to 50.6 percent - a reduction of 22.9 percent. Director Askew noted, the city is always excited when we start reducing lot coverage. However, since it's not at 45 percent and it was unpermitted work, staff is not permitted to issue any permits until they come into compliance since they ask for the variance. She mentioned that due to their lot coverage, they had drainage problems with water around the foundation and issues with mold, wood rot, and stucco in their house. The applicants were proposing French drains and other drainage improvements. Jeff Haynie asked if they knew what the lot coverage was before the unpermitted work, and Director Askew responded that it would have been at a maximum of 45 percent when developed in the eighties and early nineties. Richard Arthur asked for clarification about what surfaces would remain, and Director Askew confirmed that the entire backyard would be gravel except for the driveway, Community Development Board (CDB) April 21, 2026 which would be permeable pavers. The total impervious surface would include the driveway, house, spa, and a couple of air conditioning pads. Doug Moody inquired about the French drains, which Director Askew confirmed would help with drainage. When asked where the water would go, she explained it would not go on any neighboring property due to code requirements, and since they had an existing stormwater pond, they were not required to have on-site stormwater storage. Chair Hansen asked for clarification that the water damage was to the house on the property itself, which Director Askew confirmed. The homeowner, Patricia Wallace, stated she didn't have anything additional to add beyond what Director Askew had presented. When asked questions, she explained that the large driveway took up a huge amount of space on the lot, and there was a covered area next to a Florida room that was built later without permits. She described the transition issues and explained that during rain, "it's a lake back there." Wallace mentioned the backyard was very small, approximately 50 feet wide, which limited options for additional drainage solutions like rain barrels. When asked about trees or gardens, she noted she was a gardener but the space was too small for significant improvements. Nancy Staats asked about rain barrels and other solutions, and Wallace reiterated the space constraints, saying the backyard was really small. Chair Hansen opened the floor for public comment, but no one came forward. During board discussion, Chair Hansen stated he applauded what had been done to increase permeable surface even though they couldn't get all the way to 45 percent. He noted there had been significant investment made and said, while it didn't get to 45, he applauds the fact that it would be reduced. He viewed this as an exceptional topographic condition of the property that should be taken into consideration, particularly since this was a new owner dealing with work done years ago. Nancy Staats agreed, stating, "I also think that if we were to deny it, it might discourage other homeowners from doing something similar, which is against all of our interests. We want to try to improve as best we can, and sometimes we don't get to perfect." MOTION: To APPROVE ZVAR26-0007 based on grounds #1 -Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. Motion: Rick Ferrin Second: Richard Arthur Nancy Staats For Kirk Hansen For Rick Ferrin (Moved By) For Communithr Development Board (CUB) April 21, 2026 Richard Arthur (Seconded By) For Jeff Haynie For Doug Moody For Motion passed 6 to 0. B. 95 10th Street ZVAR26-0008 (Debra Taylor) Request for a variance to Section 24-108(e) to reduce side yard setbacks from 7.5 feet to 0 feet and rear yard setback from 20 feet to 4 inches. Director of Neighborhoods Amanda Askew presented ZVAR 26-0008, a request for a variance from section 24-151, for attached accessory structure rear and side yard setbacks. Director Askew provided context that this property was a townhome development located on the northeast corner of 10th Street and Beach Avenue, specifically it was the westerly most unit. The townhomes were built in 1959, which she noted was the first year that we had zoning codes. The zoning code at that time required a 15 -foot rear yard setback. The existing townhome was considered nonconforming because it didn't meet current zoning district setbacks. It is currently zoned RGM, which requires a 20 -foot rear yard setback. Director Askew showed Google Street View images from 2011 and 2026 to demonstrate changes over time. She explained that there had been an unpermitted porch added sometime after construction that was attached to the primary structure and extended into the rear yard setbacks. If constructed in 1959, it would have been classified as part of the structure as an attached accessory structure. Currently, the zoning code required attached accessory structures to meet the same requirements as the primary structure - a 20 -foot rear yard setback. The survey showed a covered area with a 4 -inch setback on the westerly side of the rear yard and 6 -inch setback on the easterly side from the rear property line, clearly not meeting the 20 -foot requirement or even the original 15 -foot requirement from 1959. The issue came to light through code enforcement after a fence permit was requested in 2025. During inspection, staff noticed the work didn't follow submitted plans and identified the unpermitted roof structure that had been recently remodeled. The inspector notified the homeowner that the unpermitted fence section and porch remodel needed to be removed to pass the fence inspection, which eventually escalated to code enforcement. Director Askew noted that existing porch stairs violated the applicant's western side property lines and went onto the neighbor's property, which would be a civil issue between the parties but was also noted during code enforcement actions. Community Development Board (CDB) April 21, 2026 She showed photographs of the porch and what was being referred to as "the fence," explaining the connection between the fence and the roof structure. Jeff Haynie asked for clarification about how they got to needing a variance, wondering if it was just because they were doing any work on a nonconforming structure. Director Askew explained that the roof was nonconforming and unpermitted, discovered during the fence permit inspection process. Doug Moody asked if they believed the roof had been recently redone, and Director Askew confirmed it appeared recently remodeled from the photos, noting concerns about meeting building codes, especially wind codes. Nancy Staats asked about fence regulations for other properties, and Director Askew explained that fences could generally go up to 6 feet in rear yards, but when connected to a roof and primary structure, they had to meet primary structure setbacks. Richard Arthur asked about the survey submitted with the fence permit versus the variance application, and Director Askew showed that the original survey didn't show the covered porch, while the variance application survey did. Applicant, Bill Taylor, addressed the board, first complimenting city staff including Jose Gonzales, Mike Jones, and Payton Jamieson for their helpfulness throughout the process. He explained the property's history, noting it was originally the Bikini Apartments or Motel before being converted to townhomes in the early 1980s. Taylor stated the roof had "always been there" and explained they had a new roof put on several years ago, which included reshingling that area. He assumed they would have needed a roofing permit for that work. He noted that his survey submitted for the fence showed the covered porch. Taylor explained his unfamiliarity with permitting processes, indicating he lives in Jacksonville and can do anything we want to on our property. He described replacing a 40 -year-old cracked coquina wall that was "hideous looking" after nearby homes burned down. He aligned the new fence with existing porch posts rather than putting posts closer to the property line. Taylor emphasized they didn't really change much, just added trim and beadboarding underneath, without doing reconstruction or repair to the roof itself. When asked about ownership timeline, Taylor explained his mother-in-law was the first owner after the motel conversion, and his wife became the sole owner about a year and a half ago when her mother passed, though his wife had always been on the deed. During public comment, neighbor Davis Fleming spoke in opposition. Fleming owned the property that basically encloses this property at 1025 Beach Avenue and explained the roof affected his property to the east and south, right on his property line. Community Development Board (CUB) April 21, 2026 Fleming's main objection was that all the water that comes from the porch roof flows onto his property. There's no mitigation of that water, so it's draining onto his property. From an aesthetic standpoint, he noted the different sidings on the individually owned townhouses made it difficult to maintain uniformity, and this lean to basically changes that whole eyeline as you walk down. Fleming revealed he had bought his property in 2001 and that the porch roof was not permitted back in 2001. He did not force the issue at the time because Taylor's mother- in-law Kay was elderly, but now that it had come up again, he wanted to register his objection regarding water intrusion and the roofline changes. He also noted the fence was higher than 6 feet tall from his side of the property. During board discussion, Doug Moody asked about the fence height issue, and Director Askew confirmed it was flagged as too tall in the western area during inspection. Rick Ferrin noted the issue wasn't so much the fence, which was permitted, but that there was "an accessory structure located closer than 5 feet to the principal structure, and it shall be considered attached and comply with the yard requirements to the principal structure." Nancy Staats asked about access to the property given that the neighbor's property line ran right up to where the step was, making it impossible to access without crossing into the neighbor's yard. Richard Arthur asked about the code enforcement status, and Director Askew confirmed there was open code enforcement case, explaining they always work with applicants who want to pursue variances as part of the due process. Chair Hansen asked for clarification about whether they had two issues - the roof and the fence over 6 feet - and whether they needed separate variances. There was discussion about whether this was one or two variances, with Director Askew explaining that if the fence was attached to the roof and the roof was attached to the primary structure, it was no longer just a fence but part of the primary structure requiring setback relief. MOTION: To DENY ZVAR26-0008 based on the fact that permits were not pulled, there is no record of when the roof was added and due to the attachment of the west wall to the roof. Motion: Doug Moody Second: Jeff Haynie Nancy Staats For Kirk Hansen For Rick Ferrin For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Seconded By) For Doug Moody (Moved By) For Community Development Board (CDB) April 21, 2026 Motion passed 6 to 0. C. 600 Begonia Street ZVAR26-0009 (BCEL 10C LLC) Request for a variance to Section 24-89(d) for floodplain compensation storage. Principal Planner, Payton Jamieson, presented ZVAR 26-0009 for 600 Begonia Street, a request for a variance as permitted by section 24-89(d) for relief of floodplain storage requirements for the area in the hundred -year floodplain. Planner Jamieson provided extensive background, noting that the property was originally platted in 1944 and was completely submerged within the floodplain, specifically the AE flood zone, connected to the intercoastal waterway system based on tidal canals. She explained that in 2019, there was a zoning variance hearing that included 6 lots, including 600 Begonia. The result was a unanimous decision to deny the stormwater compensation request, but a 3 -to -1 vote to approve the floodplain storage request under the condition that floodplain storage would have to be provided on the home. Section 24-65(k) requires work to begin within 12 months of variance approval. Since this lot did not meet that compliance requirement and failed to break ground, the variance for 600 Begonia expired. Therefore, this specific lot had to reapply for the variance. Planner Jamieson noted this request was only for floodplain storage and was not directly mimicking the previous request for stormwater compensation. She explained that floodplain storage requirements were met when a civil engineer concluded there was no net loss on the property. The engineer did not conclude that, and this was reviewed by city engineer Steve Swan, who reached the same conclusion. She showed a site drainage plan indicating current drainage proposals and noted the property was associated with a St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permit. There was an existing retention area across all six lots where the floodplain generally drained, required by the SJRWMD permit. City Engineer Swann discovered that the proposed stem wall filling would take up floodplain storage, though the garage met Florida building code requirements as non - habitable space needing only flood vents. The property was exempt from city on-site stormwater requirements due to the SJRWMD permit, but the submitted site plan needed updating to show flood directional arrows going directly to the storm ditch. Planner Jamieson explained the variance was needed because the applicant's engineer concluded there would be a net loss of floodplain storage in the area. She distinguished between riverine flood hazard areas where compensating floodplain storage was more critical versus this property, which "regardless, is going to flood due to inundation from the intercoastal." She showed FEMA floodplain maps illustrating that everything toward the intercoastal would flood regardless of floodplain compensation due to inundation, while properties Community Development Board (CDB) April 21, 2026 east of Mayport Road experienced more riverine floodplain conditions where the requirement was more applicable. Section 24-89(d) specifically stated there should be no net loss of storage in areas within the special flood hazard area where base flood elevation had been defined by FEMA. The variance was specifically to not provide floodplain storage via signed and sealed engineering plans confirming no net loss was achieved. Chair Hansen asked if they were looking at making a change to the ordinance based on the capability of the intercoastal waterway to absorb floodwater. Planner Jamieson confirmed that staff had determined this created conflicting interests because areas on the intercoastal are going to flood regardless, so they were trying to make the code clearer and more specific to areas that actually needed floodplain storage. Hansen referenced their previous meeting where they didn't want "form to outweigh substance" and had approved variances they normally wouldn't approve because they were looking at changing the ordinance. Jeff Haynie asked for clarification about whether this would be needed under the proposed ordinance changes, and Planner Jamieson confirmed it would not. Jeff asked about the stormwater retention area behind the lots, and Planner Jamieson explained it was existing stormwater infrastructure permitted with the St. John's Water Management District for all lots during initial development in 2019. She clarified there were two separate requirements - normal stormwater management and the special floodplain storage requirement. Nancy Staats asked about the large swale behind the lots, and Planner Jamieson confirmed it would remain unchanged and it is the existing stormwater retention, with the goal being to ensure drainage plans funnel water that way since it was already there as part of the SJRWMD permit. Rick Ferrin asked about the distinction between intercoastal drainage versus riverine drainage and whether the no net loss determination was necessary for intercoastal properties. Planner Jamieson confirmed that under current code, engineering plans needed to show no net loss whether in riverine or intercoastal areas, but the flood causes were different and the intercoastal flooding wouldn't change significantly based on individual property actions. No applicant was present to speak. During public comment, neighbor Max Nulk spoke in opposition, noting he lived right next to the property and that the area gets significantly affected when it rains and tides are high. He thought approving the variance would set a precedent and would affect him and other neighbors, especially since their own city engineer said there was a net loss. Community Development Board (CDB) April 21, 2026 Neighbor, Lorien Anderson, from 620 Begonia provided detailed testimony about flooding conditions. She explained their houses were built up 3 feet due to known flooding needs, with a giant ditch in back that floods "every single time it rains. It's not about a hurricane. It's not about a nor'easter. It's just it rains. It floods." Anderson described having to cut two ditches for storm drainage and expressed concern about not knowing the specifics of what would be built. She worried about a larger home with more impervious area being constructed and found it "frustrating knowing that I could easily flood, and it's, you know, oh, well, it's going to flood anyway." She asked the board to deny the request so the applicants could return with plans showing how to reduce impervious coverage to meet requirements. During board discussion, Nancy Staats asked why they couldn't wait for redesigned drainage plans. Staff clarified that drainage arrow issues were separate from floodplain storage and could be rectified during permitting through regrading to show water going to the detention pond. Doug Moody asked about permeability requirements, confirming they had to maintain 45 percent permeability, which would control drainage impacts. Jeff Haynie asked about the effect of denying the variance if the ordinance were subsequently changed, and staff confirmed a denied variance would just go away and not prevent future applications under changed regulations. Chair Hansen noted the difficulty of the situation, explaining that while there was flooding, it wasn't floodplain flooding but stormwater flooding, and the majority of flooding came from the intercoastal during king tides and significant rain with higher groundwater tables. Rick Ferrin confirmed this was essentially regranting a variance that was originally granted to six sites but had expired for this specific property. MOTION: To DENY ZVAR26-0009 on the grounds that none of the conditions for granting a variance were met Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Nancy Staats During further discussion, Richard Arthur noted this case was different from previous ones because the engineer was not willing to say there was no net loss but was actually saying there was a net loss, unlike previous cases where engineers had certified no net loss. Doug Moody expressed confusion about denying the variance when the next agenda item would potentially make such properties exempt from the requirement, but Jeff maintained his position that he couldn't vote for a variance when the grounds weren't met, even if the ordinance might change. Community Development Board (CDB) April 21, 2026 5. Nancy Stoats (Seconded By) For Kirk Hansen Against Rick Ferrin Against Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Doug Moody Against Motion failed 3 to 3. REPORTS A. Floodplain Storage Director of Neighborhoods Amanda Director Askew presented proposed changes to the floodplain storage ordinance that had been discussed for several months. The proposed changes, shown in purple text, would allow properties discharging into salt marsh directly adjacent to the intercoastal to not be required to provide floodplain storage. The revised language stated: "For areas located within the special flood hazard area where the base flood elevation has been defined by FEMA on a flood insurance rate map, there shall be no net loss of floodplain storage for development property projects other than those discharging into salt marsh directly adjacent to the intercoastal." The language continued to require compensatory storage on-site to offset any loss of floodplain storage volume from fill, which could be combined with storage required for increased impervious area. Applicants would still need to provide signed and sealed engineering plans documenting compliance. Director Askew explained that if approved, this would return to the board in ordinance form for a public hearing before being recommended to the commission. Chair Hansen clarified this was the revised language addressing previous concerns about double negatives and difficult -to -understand provisions. The changes still required formal ordinance adoption with public hearings. Doug Moody asked for confirmation that properties in flood zones adjacent to the intercoastal could have net loss of storage under the new language, which staff confirmed. Jeff Haynie clarified that the requirement would still apply to riverine flooding areas east of Mayport Road but not to intercoastal properties. Richard Arthur asked about how "directly adjacent to the intercoastal waterway" would be determined, and Principal Planner Jamieson explained it would be based on salt marsh connections that could be identified through wetland mappers and surveys when needed. Community Development Board (CDB) April 21, 2026 6. 7. Attest: Jeff Haynie asked about combining storage requirements, and Director Askew clarified that while there were still two separate requirements, the compensation didn't have to be isolated to separate areas - existing swales could potentially satisfy both requirements if the math worked out. MOTION. To ACCEPT the proposed language and have it legalized as a recommendation to the City Commission. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Rick Ferrin Nancy Stoats Against Kirk Hansen For Rick Ferrin (Seconded By) For Richard Arthur For Jeff Haynie (Moved By) For Doug Moody For Motion passed 5 to 1. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m. "'i, 1,14� Amanda Askew, Director L Kirk Hansen, Chair Community Development Board (CDB) April 21, 2026