Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-16-26 CDB Adopted MinutesMINUTES r!D-Wj 14 �S Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting Tuesday, June 16, 2026 - 6:00 PM City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Gregory (Greg) Beliles, Member Kirk Hansen, Chair Rick Ferrin, Member Richard Arthur, Member Ellen Golombek, Vice Chair Jeff Haynie, Member Nancy Staats, First Alternate Member Absent: Doug Moody, Member Kelly Elmore, Member Also Present: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Department Dir. (NDD) Payton Jamieson, Principal Planner (PP) Valerie Jones, Recording Clerk 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 the minutes of the May 19, 2026 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. MOTION: To APPROVE the minutes of the May 19, 2026 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second. Ellen Golombek Motion passed 7 to 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. 1890 Beach Avenue ZVAR26-0010 (Gregory Rollings) Request for a variance to Section 24-162 for driveway width and Section 24-108(f) for lot coverage. Community Development Board (CDB) June 16, 2026 Staff Presentation Director of Neighborhoods Amanda Askew introduced Principal Planner and Environmental Coordinator Payton Jamieson, who delivered the staff report. Planner Jamieson explained that the original home was constructed in 1993. The applicant, Gregory Rollings, was requesting a variance to exceed the maximum driveway width and the maximum lot coverage under Sections 24-162 and 24-108(f), respectively, in order to replace an existing deteriorated concrete driveway with brick pavers. Planner Jamieson walked the Board through the relevant code provisions and the property's history in detail. She explained that under Section 24-162, the maximum driveway width at the property line and through the right-of-way is 20 feet for single- family properties—a standard established in 2005 through Chapter 19. Because the home was built in 1993, the existing driveway predates the 2005 code, and a 2024 update to Chapter 24 brought both chapters into alignment at the 20 -foot standard. The existing driveway currently measures 30.8 feet at the right-of-way—down from approximately 48 feet as shown in a 1993 survey—making it a nonconforming but reduced condition from the original. The issue of driveway width, Planner Jamieson noted, is inseparable from lot coverage, as driveways constitute impervious surface. She traced the lot coverage history of the property: in 1993, lot coverage was below 73.2 percent; in 2004, a pool was permitted with a recorded lot coverage of 60.3 percent, though the rear pavers added around the pool were not captured in that permit record; in 2023, a deck was rebuilt over existing concrete with no change to coverage; and as of 2026, existing lot coverage stands at 73.2 percent. Planner Jamieson emphasized that the 13 -percent increase between 2004 and the present is not fully supported by permit records, primarily attributable to the unpermitted rear pavers. Staff s conclusion was that the applicant is technically grandfathered in at the permitted lot coverage of 60.3 percent, well above the current RG -M code maximum of 45 percent—and that any variance approval would need to reconcile the current 73.2 percent figure against that 60.3 percent grandfathered baseline. Board Questions for Staff Board Member Golombek raised the question of whether permeable pavers, which typically receive a 50 percent credit toward lot coverage, could reduce the effective impervious surface to bring the property into greater compliance. Planner Jamieson clarified that because the applicant had specifically requested brick pavers, staff had analyzed the application as submitted but acknowledged that the Board could condition any approval. She noted that regardless of paver type, the applicant would still need to meet the 60.3 percent grandfathered coverage to avoid exceeding the permitted baseline. Board Member Beliles offered an estimate, noting that a 20 -by -30 -foot driveway would yield approximately 600 square feet, and a 50 percent credit on that area would represent roughly 5 to 7 percent of lot coverage on a property of that size—a meaningful but not necessarily sufficient reduction to bridge the full 13 percent gap back to the grandfathered figure. Community Development Board (CDB) June 16, 2026 Board Member Staats suggested separating the driveway width question from the lot coverage question, observing that she had driven past the property and noted a three -car garage, making a wider driveway functionally necessary. Planner Jamieson clarified that while code allows a 20 -foot access point at the right-of-way with a flare -out behind, the design for a three -car garage is "a little iffy" but not impossible. She confirmed that the driveway and lot coverage issues are legally intertwined because the driveway itself contributes to impervious surface calculations. She affirmed that the Board could attach conditions to any approval. Board Member Golombek also raised the distinction between approving conditionally versus requiring the applicant to withdraw and resubmit, noting that denial would impose a one-year waiting period. Applicant Presentation Applicant Gregory Rollings addressed the Board. He stated that he and his family purchased the home approximately four years ago and have undertaken a step-by-step remodel, with the driveway being the final phase. He described the driveway as being in significant disrepair—sunken and cracked in places—and stated that his only intention was to replace what is already there, not to enlarge or otherwise alter it. He confirmed the existence of a three -car garage and explained that the full driveway width is used by his family, particularly when his daughter's family visits and all three spaces are occupied. Board Questions for the Applicant Board Member Golombek asked Mr. Rollings to clarify whether the pool and surrounding pavers were existing when the property was purchased. Mr. Rollings confirmed that all exterior hardscape, including the pool, rear pavers, and side walkways - was in place when he purchased the property four years ago. He explained that the side pavers are narrow walkways leading through gates to the front door and to a mother-in-law suite, and that they also connect to the pool deck. The only exterior work he had performed was rebuilding the deck, repainting the house, and replacing the garage doors. Board Member Haynie asked whether the full driveway capacity is routinely needed. Mr. Rollings confirmed it is, explaining that neighbor construction crews had recently used his driveway without permission, accounting for the atypical sight of a truck parked there. A board member asked Mr. Rollings whether he had considered replacing some of the brick pavers with permeable pavers or simply removing certain sections to reduce overall lot coverage. Mr. Rollings stated that permeable pavers had been explored early in the process but were cost -prohibitive. He also explained that the side walkways are too narrow to eliminate without losing basic functionality, and that the pool deck is smaller than it appears because the pool is actually a small "spool." He acknowledged that if conditions were attached that he could not afford, he would likely leave the driveway in its deteriorated state. Community Development Board (CDB) June 16, 2026 Board Discussion The Board engaged in extended discussion about how to reconcile the applicant's practical need with the code's lot coverage requirements. Several approaches were considered. Board Member Arthur raised the "exchange theory": if the lot is 13 percent over the grandfathered 60.3 percent, achieving compliance through permeable pavers would require finding approximately 1,560 square feet of impervious surface to replace at a 50 percent credit—a figure the member was uncertain was physically available on the property, and expressed hesitation about delegating that calculation to staff without certainty it was achievable. Chair Hansen suggested that one of the grounds for approval is the existence of onerous effects of regulations enacted after platting or construction. He observed that the applicant's alternative is simply to do nothing—leaving the broken driveway in place— which would not change the impervious/pervious ratio at all. In his view, allowing the applicant to fix the driveway and make it aesthetically pleasing, without adding any new impervious surface, is arguably consistent with that criterion. Another board member pushed back, questioning whether a lot already at 73.2 percent coverage could truly be described as burdened by an onerous regulation. He expressed uncertainty that this alone justified approval. Board Member Golombek raised a forward-looking concern: if the variance were granted at 73.2 percent, would any future owner be able to build or add impervious surface up to that figure? Director Askew suggested that a motion could be structured to avoid grandfathering coverage at 73.2 percent, ensuring that any future improvements would require compliance with the 60.3 percent figure. Board Member Staats expressed support for a middle -ground approach—approving the driveway replacement conditionally using pervious pavers and potentially requiring that the walkways be changed to the same material to achieve additional reductions. She noted the walkways might not require the full cost of comprehensive permeable paver installation and could bring the lot measurably closer to compliance. Board Member Ferrin agreed with this framing, noting that while pervious pavers would not achieve perfection, they would get the property closer to the grandfathered 60.3 percent coverage and represented a meaningful improvement over the status quo of a deteriorating concrete surface. Board Member Beliles proposed a conditional approval: allow the driveway width variance, require that the driveway be replaced with pervious pavers (which would bring the impervious ratio down somewhat even if not to 60.3 percent), and add a condition that any future improvements to the property not exceed the 60.3 percent grandfathered lot coverage. He characterized this as a reasonable compromise that improved conditions without penalizing the applicant for the existing state of the property. Community Development Board (CDB) June 16, 2026 Formal Motion Beliles moved to approve the variance, grounding the approval on criteria number 4 (exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use), subject to the condition that the driveway be replaced with pervious pavers. Board Member Golombek seconded the motion but requested a friendly amendment providing that any future improvements to the property not exceed 60.3 percent lot coverage. The amendment was accepted by the mover and seconded by Chair Hansen. The restated motion, as amended by Beliles, was to approve the variance subject to (1) the driveway being replaced with pervious pavers, which would reduce the overall impervious -to -pervious ratio, and (2) any future improvements to the property not exceeding 60.3 percent lot coverage. A board member asked for clarification that both conditions were included in the motion, and Beliles confirmed the language. Applicant Response to Conditions Mr. Rollings interjected, expressing frustration with the recommendation for approval. He indicated that if the Board intended to impose conditions he could not afford -the requirement for pervious pavers—he would prefer to withdraw his application rather than accept conditions he could not fulfill. He argued that he was simply trying to replace an existing, deteriorated surface to improve the appearance of the street, and pointed out that neighboring properties had recently installed large concrete driveways without apparent consequence. He stated: "If you're going to put stipulations on me just making my house look better, it's not—I mean, it's the same. I'd just let it sit there and look ugly." Chair Hansen acknowledged Mr. Rollings' position and explained the Board's options: vote on the motion as stated, with the applicant then having the choice to proceed under the conditions or not; or decline to vote on the current motion and consider an alternative, less restrictive approach. He sought to maintain order, asking the Board—rather than the applicant—to direct the discussion. Director Askew offered an alternative procedural option: deferring the item for approximately 30 days to allow the applicant to obtain pricing on pervious pavers and return with better information, thus avoiding the one-year waiting period associated with a denial. Further board discussion reflected a range of views. One member noted that the 73.2 percent lot coverage was significantly higher than other variance applications seen along Beach Avenue involving wide driveway aprons, and that the compounding effect of the existing unpermitted impervious surfaces distinguished this case. The same member expressed personal comfort with the pervious paver condition as a reasonable step toward conformity, drawing on precedent from prior variances in the area. Chair Hansen, satisfied that the Board understood the stakes, called the question. Community Development Board (CDB) June 16, 2026 5. MOTION. A motion to APPROVE ZVAR26-0010 for 1890 Beach Avenue, grounded in criteria number 4 (exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use of the property as enacted after development), subject to the conditions that (1) the driveway be replaced with pervious pavers to reduce the overall impervious -to -pervious surface ratio, and (2) any future improvements to the property not exceed 60.3 percent lot coverage. Motion: Gregory (Greg) Beliles Second. Ellen Golombek Following the vote, Mr. Rollings asked staff how to proceed, and Director Askew invited him to contact her office to sit down and review the pervious paver requirements and options. Mr. Rollings expressed his disappointment with the outcome but acknowledged the result. Gregory (Greg) Beliles (Moved By) For Kirk Hansen Against Rick Ferrin For Richard Arthur For Ellen Golombek (Seconded By) For Jeff Haynie For Nancy Staats For Motion passed 6 to 1. REPORTS A. Floodplain Ordinance Director Askew introduced Ordinance No. 90-26-260, framing it as the culmination of several months of discussion prompted by a variance request that had revealed an inconsistency in the City's existing floodplain storage regulations. She read the title of the ordinance into the record for purposes of the public hearing: "An ordinance of the City of Atlantic Beach, County of Duval, State of Florida, hereby amending the Land Development Regulations as adopted by Ordinance No. 90-24-253, including all amendments thereto; this ordinance specifically amending Section 24-89, Stormwater Drainage, Stormwater and Treatment Requirements; providing for record and providing for an effective date." Director Askew noted a clerical error: page 25 of the ordinance document contained an incorrect date of August 26th; the correct date is June 16, 2026. She advised the Board that this would be corrected before the ordinance proceeds. Board Questions for Staff Board Member Staats asked Director Askew to explain, in plain language, what "compensatory storage on-site" means. Director Askew explained that there are multiple ways to accommodate this requirement—swales, depressed areas, and other design Community Development Board (CDB) June 16, 2026 features -and that the approach depends largely on the applicant's preference and the physical geography of the site. A board member asked how staff determines which properties qualify for the proposed exemption—specifically, those "discharging into the salt marsh directly adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." Director Askew referenced the FEMA flood zone maps used by the City and explained that the exemption applies to properties in areas shown in pink on the staffs depiction—those immediately adjacent to the salt marsh and the Intracoastal—while properties in the purple areas (also in AE flood zones but not immediately adjacent) would still be subject to the floodplain storage requirements. The board member clarified that a property does not need to be directly on the Intracoastal to potentially qualify, as long as it is within the applicable AE flood zone connected to the Intracoastal. Director Askew confirmed this was correct. Public Comment Sarah Boren, 388 8th Street - Ms. Boren offered an organized and detailed commentary. She identified what she described as two major changes in the proposed ordinance: (1) properties adjacent to the salt marsh would be exempt from floodplain storage requirements; and (2) for all other properties, floodplain storage can be combined with on-site stormwater storage rather than required in addition to it. She asked whether "combined" represented a net loss of storage, and Director Askew clarified it was not -it simply allowed the two volumes to be placed in one area. Ms. Boren flagged that the exemption language, referencing properties "discharging into the salt marsh," was ambiguous and could be read as applying broadly to any property that drains toward the marsh, not just those immediately adjacent to it. She recommended adding a sentence making explicit that exempt projects are still subject to stormwater and water quality requirements. She also noted that the word "discharge" is more commonly associated with stormwater runoff than with floodwaters and suggested that clearer terminology would strengthen the ordinance. Ms. Boren proposed adding language requiring signed and sealed engineering plans with explicit cumulative impact analysis and calculations based on future conditions, including sea level rise projections—not solely current hydrology. She raised the absence of any stated justification for the exemption and recommended that a rationale be embedded in the ordinance for the benefit of future administrators. She also asked whether an estimate exists of how many properties would be affected, and whether the Board had considered inserting a cap on total floodplain storage loss. She asked about next steps, and Chair Hansen confirmed the ordinance would proceed to the City Commission on July 13th. Anna Nulk, 610 Begonia Street - Ms. Nulk introduced herself and Mr. Nulk as residents of a street directly in the ICW area. She described existing flooding conditions on both Begonia Street and 6th Street, where streets already hold substantial water for several days following rain events, and expressed concern about how the proposed language change could exacerbate future flooding. She raised the possibility of increased flood insurance costs if developments take advantage of the exemption. She suggested that if there is a specific reason for the language change, the exemption might be more appropriately limited to homes directly along the Intracoastal. Mr. Nulk added that the exemption creates a special carve -out for what he characterized as the most flood - vulnerable area in the community, questioning why that area should receive less Community Development Board (CDB) .lune 16, 2026 protection rather than more. He raised the cumulative effect of multiple projects, arguing that dozens of developments in the area, collectively reducing storage capacity without any offsetting requirement, would compound flood risk over time. He also raised environmental concerns about unrestricted discharge into the salt marshes, which serve as natural flood buffers. Mr. Nulk directly questioned whether FEMA had confirmed that the proposed exemption is consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program requirements, warning that non-compliance could jeopardize access to federal flood insurance. He noted that the prior code language required signed and sealed engineering plans proving no net loss, and argued that the exemption removes that documentation requirement, eliminating any paper trail or accountability. He recommended that the Board table its recommendation and request an independent hydrology study before proceeding. Lorien Anderson, adjacent to the marsh - Ms. Anderson questioned what qualifies a property as "discharging directly into the salt marsh," noting that her own property and an adjacent one that had recently sought a variance are described as discharging into the marsh even though there is an intervening junkyard and auto shop between those parcels and the marsh itself. She asked for clarification on how far the exemption would reach. She also expressed concern that the City was considering reducing floodplain protections before completion of the updated stormwater master plan, which, according to the City's own staff report, was intended to guide long-term revisions to stormwater policy. She noted that an RFP had been issued in August 2025 and asked for a status update on that project. She concluded by asking: "What's the rush? Why are we rushing to make this change before there's any studies completed when we know there's already flooding and vulnerable people in these areas?" Board Discussion Board Member Staats stated that she had voted against this ordinance at the previous meeting and retained lingering concerns. She clarified her understanding that the City had previously imposed its own floodplain storage requirement above and beyond what St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) required and asked whether the City was now deferring to SJRWMD. Director Askew explained that most single-family homes do not pursue the SJRWMD permitting route; they go through the City's permitting process, which is typically faster. SJRWMD approval remains available to applicants and would override the City's permit if obtained. Board Member Staats expressed concern about the impetus for the change given the existing flooding conditions in the affected area and suggested that the forthcoming stormwater master plan—which she understood would now encompass both the older parts of the city and the marsh side—would provide valuable information before any regulatory changes are made. She asked whether any comparable cities had undertaken a similar exemption and what the outcomes were and suggested that a phased approach might be appropriate given the uncertainty about cumulative impact. A board member asked Director Askew to clarify the origin of the ordinance. She explained that it emerged from a pattern of variance requests in the ICW area, during which the Board observed that the existing code language contained an internal conflict: the first sentence of the relevant section prohibits any net loss of floodplain storage, while a subsequent section states that signed and sealed engineering documents demonstrating Community Development Board (CDB) June 16, 2026 no net loss are sufficient to proceed. The result was that applicants who complied with the engineering requirement were still being sent through the variance process. The ordinance, developed collaboratively between the CDB, the City's engineer, and staff, was intended to resolve that inconsistency. The board member articulated the underlying theory: that for properties connected to an infinite body of water like the Intracoastal, on-site floodplain storage provides little meaningful protection against the primary flooding source—the Intracoastal itself rising—and that requiring it in those cases imposes a burden without a corresponding benefit. Board Member Golombek asked Director Askew whether the proposed changes had been reviewed for consistency with FEMA requirements. Director Askew explained that the City participates in FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS), under which it receives credit for requiring structures to be elevated 2.5 feet above the FEMA minimum base flood elevation—and that the floodplain storage exemption would not affect flood insurance, because the structure elevation requirement remains unchanged. Board Member Golombek confirmed that, under the existing code, properties in the ICW AE zone with an engineer's signed and sealed documentation of no net loss are still required to come before the CDB for a variance—and asked whether the proposed ordinance would eliminate that requirement for those specific properties. Director Askew confirmed that was correct: only for properties located on the Intracoastal. The Board reached consensus that while the intent of the ordinance was sound and addressed a genuine code inconsistency, the language required further refinement before forwarding a recommendation to the Commission. Several areas of concern were identified: the ambiguity of the term "discharge" in the context of floodplain (as opposed to stormwater); the lack of any stated justification or rationale for the exemption within the ordinance itself; the absence of clarity on geographic scope; and the public comments raising concerns about cumulative impact analysis and future conditions. Board Member Golombek moved to return the ordinance to staff for rework incorporating the issues raised by both the Board and the public, including additions addressing the justification for the exemption, clearer definitional language distinguishing affected areas, and consideration of the public's comments regarding cumulative impact and future conditions analysis. Chair Hansen noted that while justification and rationale could not necessarily be embedded in the operative code language, it could appropriately be captured in the ordinance's "whereas" clauses. Floodplain Ordinance Public Comment (Sarah Boren) MOTION: To return Ordinance No. 90-26-260 to staff for further revision, incorporating clarifications regarding the justification for the floodplain storage exemption, cleaner definitional language, and consideration of the issues raised by both board members and public commenters. Motion: Ellen Golombek Second. Rick Ferrin Motion passed 7 to 0. Community Development Board (CDB) June 16, 2026 6. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m. Attest: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Director Kirk4lansen, Chair Community Development Board (CDB) June 16, 2026