Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-25-26 CDB Adopted MinutesMINUTES Community Development Board (CDB) Meeting Tuesday, August 25, 2026 - 6:00 PM City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Doug Moody, Member Kirk Hansen, Chair Rick Ferrin, Member Jeff Haynie, Member Absent: Gregory (Greg) Beliles, Member Richard Arthur, 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 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve minutes of the July 21, 2026 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. MOTION. To APPROVE the minutes of the July 21, 2026 regular meeting of the Community Development Board. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second. Rick Ferrin Motion passed 4 to 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. 650 Sherry Drive ZVAR26-0014 (Ian Brown) Request for a variance to Section 24-89 (d) for floodplain storage and Section 24-89 (c) for compensatory storage (stormwater storage). Staff Presentation Environmental Planner and Coordinator Payton Jamieson presented the staff report for 650 Sherry Drive, a request for variance from Sections 24-89(d) and 24-89(c), pertaining Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 to floodplain and stormwater (compensatory) storage requirements, respectively. Planner Jamieson explained that the property is located west of Sherry Drive, adjacent to Howell Park, with Sherman's Creek to the north. The lot is zoned RS -2 (Residential Single Family), is a platted lot of record measuring 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep (5,000 square feet), and does not meet the standard RS -2 lot width requirement of 70 feet. The property is predominantly located within the riverine floodplain, classified as Zone A on FEMA flood maps. The application arose through a 2026 building permit plan review, during which Public Works flagged the compensatory storage deficiencies. Planner Jamieson explained Section 24-89(c) addresses stormwater storage, which is triggered when a lot's impervious coverage exceeds 35 percent. Section 24-89(d) addresses floodplain storage, which is required whenever fill is placed within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area, resulting in a net loss of natural floodplain storage. Taken together, these requirements produce the total compensatory storage obligation. The storage must be located at least one foot above the estimated seasonal high water table, achieved through excavation and grading of the lot. For this specific property, the applicant's proposed lot coverage is 45 percent, which exceeds the 35 percent threshold and triggers stormwater storage. Additionally, the applicant indicated plans to bring fill onto the property to raise the existing grade from approximately 4.4-4.8 feet to a proposed elevation of 6 feet, which triggers the floodplain storage requirement. Public Works calculated the stormwater-only storage requirement at approximately 1,604 cubic feet. The fill -related floodplain component would add further to that obligation, but would require signed and sealed engineering plans to quantify precisely. Planner Jamieson noted that the applicant's submitted plans showed only approximately 330 cubic feet of proposed storage in the driveway area, and that no soil boring report had been provided to verify the depth of the estimated seasonal high water table. Planner Jamieson read from an email provided by the city's Public Works inspector, Angela, which summarized the inherent circularity of the site's stormwater problem: the lot's historical drainage flows toward the rear and into the park; changing the lot grade to create retention would raise it above neighboring properties; any fill brought in to create stormwater storage in the floodplain simultaneously increases the compensatory floodplain storage requirement. The email further noted that the only viable location for retention appeared to be the front yard, which could theoretically provide approximately 807 cubic feet of storage at one foot of depth — though without a boring report, staff could not confirm whether that excavation depth was achievable above the seasonal high water table. Planner Jamieson concluded that a variance is needed, and noted that because this property sits within the riverine floodplain (east of Mayport Road) rather than the intracoastal waterway floodplain, it would continue to require CDB review regardless of proposed changes to floodplain ordinance language. Three options were presented to the Board: approve, approve with conditions (requiring front -yard compensatory storage of approximately 807 cubic feet), or deny and require the applicant to rework the site plan. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 Board Questions Moody asked to confirm the storage figures: the 1,604 cubic feet applied to stormwater only, and that figure would likely increase once floodplain storage was added based on engineering calculations. Planner Jamieson confirmed this. Moody then asked whether the 807 cubic feet figure for front -yard storage was reliable. Planner Jamieson explained it was a mathematical estimate by Public Works based on a one -foot excavation depth, consistent with what has been achievable on surrounding properties, but cautioned that the absent boring report made it unverifiable. Moody asked whether it was customary to proceed without a boring report. Planner Jamieson explained that the plan was flagged and denied during review partly because of the absence of the boring report, which is the mechanism used to verify the seasonal high water table depth. Ferrin observed that the lot coverage ratio of 45 percent is what triggers the 1,604 -cubic - foot stormwater requirement, and that the additional fill to bring the lot from approximately 4.8 to 6 feet would trigger a further floodplain storage obligation — potentially doubling the total requirement - while the maximum achievable front -yard storage, even under optimistic assumptions about the water table, is only 807 cubic feet. Planner Jamieson confirmed this analysis and noted that even fill associated with pilings on typical floodplain properties generates some floodplain compensatory storage obligation. Haynie confirmed that there is no existing pool on the property, and that the pool shown is part of the proposed new construction. He asked whether the city had discussed with the applicant whether the 807 -cubic -foot front -yard storage option was feasible. Planner Jamieson suggested deferring that question to the applicant. Haynie then asked whether, in the city's view, it was even possible to comply with the full requirements on this site plan. Planner Jamieson stated plainly that while some storage could be placed in the front yard, it would not satisfy the full code requirement. Applicant Presentation Ian Brown, appearing on behalf of the property owners, provided a detailed presentation characterizing the site as "truly atypical." He noted that the property currently contains a 1970s -era dwelling in a state of significant deferred maintenance, and that with the home's existing finished floor elevation (FFE) of approximately 7.8 feet falling well below the required minimum FFE of 9.5 feet for this flood zone, any renovation exceeding 50 percent of the structure's assessed value of approximately $280,000 would trigger the FFE compliance requirement, effectively necessitating demolition and new construction. Brown described what he termed a "storage squeeze": the site is too low and too wet to excavate for stormwater storage, and too encumbered by the floodplain to add fill without triggering additional compensatory storage obligations. He explained the circular logic as follows — to go down and excavate for storage, the applicant hits groundwater; the soil borings, which had been submitted to planning and public works Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 but may not have been in the presenter's materials, show a seasonal high water table at only 1.5 feet below existing grade. With a required one -foot buffer between the bottom of any retention facility and the water table, only six inches of effective excavation depth is achievable, reducing the potential front -yard storage to roughly half of the 807 -cubic - foot estimate. Conversely, to go up with fill in order to create above -grade bermed storage is also not viable because (a) every cubic foot of fill in the FEMA floodplain increases the compensatory floodplain storage requirement in a self -reinforcing loop, and (b) raising the grade above neighboring properties could constitute tortious flooding of adjacent properties. Brown identified a small triangular area outside the FEMA flood zone in the front -left corner of the lot as the only location where any meaningful storage could be placed without generating additional compensatory requirements, but emphasized that even there, the shallow water table limits what is achievable. He characterized this as a platted lot of record rendered effectively unbuildable by post -platting legislation — in his words, "classic after enacted legislation putting an undue burden hardship on a platted lot of record." He argued that the applicant meets at least several of the six variance approval criteria under Section 24-65(f), including exceptional topographic conditions, disparate surrounding conditions, exceptional circumstances preventing reasonable use, and regulations enacted after platting. He stated that the owner is not seeking any relief from setbacks or coverage requirements — only from the compensatory storage obligation — and that the footprint proposed is consistent with what any RS -2 lot of this shape and size could otherwise support. Brown acknowledged that approval with conditions — placing whatever storage can be physically accommodated into the triangular front corner — would be acceptable to the owner, even if that amount is modest. He cautioned that denial without some relief could render the lot legally unbuildable, which he suggested could give rise to an inverse condemnation claim. Paul Zobouni, identified as the builder (Blue Wave Builders), spoke briefly to confirm that every effort had been made to comply, that Public Works had personally advised seeking a variance as the only viable path forward, and that the team had no history of circumventing retention requirements on any of their many previous Atlantic Beach projects. Public Comment The Chair opened the courtesy of the floor. John Flynn disagreed with characterizing the lot as nonstandard, noting that 50 -foot lots are common in Atlantic Beach and have been built upon without difficulty. He expressed concern that granting the variance would set a dangerous precedent for an estimated 11 other lots in similar conditions on the same side of Sherry Drive. He calculated that a footprint reduced to 35 percent lot coverage — approximately 1,750 square feet — could be built to two or three stories to achieve adequate living space without exceeding the impervious threshold, and noted that there are already homes on stilts along Sherman's Creek. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 Suzanne Barker requested denial of the variance, arguing that all Atlantic Beach property owners are held to stormwater retention requirements and the applicant should be no exception. She acknowledged sympathy for the buyers but suggested they had purchased the property with knowledge of its characteristics. Marisa Carbone expressed concern about precedent, characterizing Sherry Drive as uniformly low-lying and potentially wet, and warned that approval could generate many more similar requests. She also raised the possibility that the property could be flipped to another developer who would not share the current applicants' restraint. Sarah Boren asked whether any analysis had been performed regarding the downstream impact on Howell Park of having no on-site stormwater or floodplain storage — where the water from the redeveloped lot would in fact go. Brian Vonn raised the issue of flood insurance rates and questioned how expanding a property's footprint below minimum code elevation would affect community -wide insurance costs. Lisa Harold of the property across the street testified that she had lived in the neighborhood for over 30 years and confirmed the lot has always been low, wet, and 50 - by -100. She urged the Board not to set a dangerous precedent and noted that the out-of- town buyers had the property available for purchase for approximately a year before acquiring it. Elizabeth Rozas expressed an asymmetry in the analysis: the environmental and precedent -setting risks of approval appeared significant, while the argument in favor appeared to be primarily a desire for a larger house. Ian Brown was permitted a rebuttal. He acknowledged the audience's concerns but argued that the "slippery slope" concern was less applicable here than it might be elsewhere, because the yellow flood zone on the FEMA map makes it visually apparent which properties face the same constraints. He reiterated that the lot is a platted lot of record and that, in his view, denying all relief could constitute an unbuildable condition for a legally established parcel, with potential legal consequences for the city. Board Discussion Moody asked Director Askew whether a smaller footprint — at or below 35 percent lot coverage — would meaningfully reduce the compensatory storage problem. Director Askew confirmed that reducing the footprint would reduce the stormwater component, but that floodplain storage would still be triggered by any fill associated with achieving the required FFE, whether through a stem wall or pilings. She noted that any fill in any portion of the yellow FEMA -mapped area generates the obligation. Moody asked whether denial with an invitation to return with a revised smaller -footprint plan would be beneficial. Director Askew confirmed that the Board could also defer the matter. Ferrin explored the scenario of a stem wall or piling foundation that brings the home to the required FFE without raising the overall lot grade, asking whether the only Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 compensatory storage required would then be for the volume displaced by the structural elements. Director Askew confirmed that this was essentially correct. Haynie stated he was inclined against approval, reasoning that while unique circumstances exist, he was not convinced they are unique to this particular lot versus the broader street. He was troubled that only one plan had been presented — one seeking a larger house and pool — rather than alternative designs exploring reduced coverage. He cited the variance ordinance's prohibition on granting relief for situations created by the owner's own choices and suggested the applicant was limiting its own options. However, he was sensitive to the fact that denial would preclude the applicant from returning for one year, which he acknowledged made the decision more consequential. Chair Hansen stated that the city engineer had not signed off on the proposal as being sound, and expressed concern about waiving requirements given existing flooding conditions in the broader area of old Atlantic Beach. He indicated he was not prepared to approve a variance without engineering endorsement. Moody expressed the board's need to be cautious about approving construction that would exacerbate flooding, noting that he had personally walked the adjacent park and observed that the boardwalk immediately behind the property was one of the lowest and wettest points on the path. He agreed with concerns about precedent but indicated he would be willing to hear a revised plan from the applicant. At this point, the applicant requested a deferral to allow an opportunity to revise the plans and present alternatives. MOTION. To DEFER ZVAR26-0014. Motion: Rick Ferrin Second. Doug Moody Motion passed 4 to 0. B. 1337 Estrela Lane ZVAR26-0015 (Lane Strumlauf) Request for a variance to Section 24-151(e)(2) for required accessory structure side yard setbacks to construct a screen enclosure. Staff Presentation Director Askew presented this item. The property is located at the terminus of a private cul-de-sac, Estrela Lane, on the east side of the roadway and is the northernmost home in a small subdivision. It is zoned RS -1 (Residential Single Family) and is a newly constructed home approaching a certificate of occupancy. A substantial portion of the subdivision, including the rear of the subject property, lies within a conservation easement and buffer area adjacent to Sherman's Creek. The applicant constructed a pool permitted to be within five feet of the side property line, which is the allowable setback for accessory structures. Subsequently, the applicant Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 sought to enclose the pool with a screen enclosure. Because the pool's edge and the surrounding pavers are already at the five-foot minimum setback, the screen enclosure structure itself would encroach into the required setback. The request is for a variance to allow the screen enclosure to be constructed within three feet of the side yard- a two -foot reduction from the required five feet. Director Askew reminded the Board that approval requires finding that one or more of the six criteria in Section 24-65(f) are met. Applicant Presentation Homeowner Melissa Strumlauf appeared and introduced their contractor, Ryan Pahlow of Coastal Oaks Construction, spoke on the project's behalf. Pahlow explained that the pool's location between the house foundation and the buildable area was constrained by pier footings for the roofline of an adjacent outdoor living walkway, and that the angle of structural repose around those footings pushed the pool toward the south property line. The screen enclosure as currently configured would sit almost directly on the waterline of the pool's south edge, leaving no room for egress. The request to extend the enclosure two additional feet into the setback is specifically to provide a deck area along the south side that would allow safe egress from the pool in an emergency. Pahlow also noted that the property's rear is entirely wooded, making an unscreened pool area impractical. Board Discussion Haynie asked directly why the screen enclosure was not incorporated into the original construction plans. Pahlow acknowledged the question as fair, attributing the oversight to the complexity of fitting the pool into the constrained geometry of the lot — particularly given the pier footings — and the assumption that an enclosure would fit within allowable limits. Moody echoed this concern, stating that if the intent was always to have a covered lanai, the pool should have been designed two to three feet narrower to accommodate the enclosure within the required setback. He expressed sympathy but characterized the situation as a design flaw rather than a qualifying hardship. Ferrin agreed that, reviewing the six criteria under Section 24-65(f), none appeared applicable to this case. Chair Hansen noted that one possible argument could be made under the criterion regarding chronic conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately, given that the buildable area of the lot is compressed by the conservation easement in the rear — though he acknowledged this was a stretch. No member found compelling grounds for approval. MOTION: To DENY ZVAR26-0015 on the basis that none of the grounds for approval were applicable. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second: Rick Ferrin Motion passed 4 to 0. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 C. 1415 Ocean Boulevard ZVAR26-0016 (Caroline Davis) Request for a variance to Section 24-151(e) for allowable maximum size of an accessory structure to construct a 210 sq. ft. covered pavilion. Staff Presentation Planner Jamieson presented this item. The property is located on the northeast corner of Ocean Boulevard and 14th Street, zoned RS -2, and is the subject of active renovations including a new garage addition and driveway improvements. The variance request concerns the construction of a 210 -square -foot detached open-air pavilion. Section 24- 151(e)(5) limits accessory structures to 160 square feet. The applicant seeks to exceed that limit by 50 square feet. Planner Jamieson clarified that no setback issues are implicated — the request is solely about the square footage cap. Moody asked whether attaching the pavilion to the garage (which is attached to the house) would remove the square footage limitation. Planner Jamieson explained that if the roof lines were connected, the pavilion would become part of the primary structure's footprint and the 160 -square -foot accessory structure limitation would no longer apply; however, the structure would then need to meet primary structure setbacks for the RS -2 district rather than accessory structure setbacks. Applicant Caroline Davis subsequently clarified that attaching the structure had been explored but was not feasible due to the required 20 -foot rear setback from what is treated as the front of the house on 14th Street. Applicant Presentation Homeowner Caroline Davis explained that the family purchased the property in 2008 and has been invested in maintaining it as a traditional Atlantic Beach home. The impetus for the current project was the construction of a new garage — the home previously had none, which the family with two sons found untenable. The garage construction displaced the existing outdoor living space, which had measured approximately 359 square feet. The 210 -square -foot open-air pavilion is, she noted, already smaller than the outdoor space they are losing. Davis made the point that felt counterintuitive to the family: if the applicants were willing to enclose the structure with walls, they could build a pool house of up to 600 square feet, up to 25 feet high, without any variance. They are instead seeking a smaller, open-air, lower -impact structure that they believe is more in keeping with Atlantic Beach's character. She framed this as the more responsible choice for the neighborhood. Photos of the property, showing its modest, well-maintained character and the modest scale of the proposed pavilion, were displayed for the Board. Two members of the public spoke in support of the application. A neighbor, Mike Mesiano of 1375 Ocean Boulevard, acknowledged that he had encouraged the Davis family to stay in Atlantic Beach despite the challenges of no garage and a growing family, and vouched for them as model neighbors who had consistently improved the property in a character -appropriate way. Ryan Rickols of 1450 Ocean Boulevard, who had previously constructed a 210 -square -foot enclosed pool house across the street, observed that the 160 -square -foot cap for open, unenclosed structures seemed arbitrary when an enclosed structure of greater size could be built without a variance at all. A Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 contractor from Magnolia Lane Builders also spoke, reiterating the point that the variance being requested would actually result in a less impactful structure than what the applicants could construct by right if they enclosed it. Board Discussion Haynie stated he would like to approve the request but could not identify applicable grounds under Section 24-65(f). He characterized the 50 additional square feet as a matter of preference and convenience rather than a unique, unworkable condition of the property. Ferrin observed that the criterion regarding surrounding conditions impacting the property disparately from nearby properties, as cited by the applicant, did not appear to cleanly fit but acknowledged the commonsense argument that the 160 -square -foot cap may be somewhat arbitrary in this context. Chair Hansen was candid about his internal conflict: "I want to do something that makes sense, yet I don't want us to open the code up and say, now it's open season." He expressed personal admiration for the proposed structure while acknowledging the institutional risk of approving on thin grounds. Moody asked whether the Board could locate a more applicable criterion among the six. Director Askew explained that the 160 -square -foot limit historically derives from shed - sizing standards — it corresponds to a standard prefabricated shed available from major retailers — and serves to limit the scale of ancillary structures relative to primary uses. The Board's discussion remained candid about the tension between the merits of the specific request and the lack of clear grounds for granting a variance. MOTION. To APPROVE ZVAR26-0016 based on finding that surrounding conditions and circumstances impact the property disparately from nearby properties. Motion: Doug Moody Second. Rick Ferrin Doug Moody (Moved By) For Kirk Hansen For Rick Ferrin (Seconded By) For Jeff Haynie Against Motion passed 3 to 1. D. 740 Sherry Drive ZVAR26-0017 (Mako Development) Request for a variance to Section 23-33 of code for required for doubled tree mitigation after the fact. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 Staff Presentation Director Askew presented this item, noting that it falls under the board's jurisdiction to hear variance requests under Chapter 23 (Vegetative and Tree Code), specifically Section 23-51(d). The subject property at 740 Sherry Drive is a newly constructed home on what was formerly a single parcel that was split into two lots (the other being 760 Sherry Drive), both now under separate new construction. Addressing issues had Director Askew emphasize the legal description of the lot. She noted that because of addressing issues the variance should reference the legal description. Director Askew provided a detailed chronological account of the history: • A courtesy pre -permit site inspection was conducted by a former staff member to identify trees on the property. • In March 2025, a tree removal permit application was submitted concurrently with the new home permit application. Both were deemed incomplete due to missing information. • Staff worked with the applicant to revise the tree permit application but noted that a required initial barricade inspection was never scheduled. Without that inspection — which allows staff to verify in the field that flagged trees match the application — the permit cannot be formally issued. • A building permit was issued on April 25, 2025. • In August 2025, tree removal commenced while the tree permit remained incomplete and unissued. • The applicant has indicated a belief that the tree permit was issued when the building permit was issued. • Under Section 23-51(d)(2), staff issued an enforcement finding of unpermitted tree removal and applied the double mitigation penalty. • The applicant appealed staffs interpretation of double mitigation to the Environmental Stewardship Committee's tree subcommittee in September 2025. The subcommittee upheld staffs interpretation. • Tonight's hearing is on the applicant's request for a variance to reduce the required mitigation. Director Askew explained the mitigation calculations in detail. Under the new construction category, trees of 14 to 30 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) carry a 1:2 mitigation ratio — one inch removed requires two inches replaced. Total removed DBH was 64 inches; after applying preservation credits for trees retained on-site, the standard (non -doubled) mitigation obligation is 48 inches DBH. Applying the double mitigation penalty for unpermitted removal produces a required mitigation of 310 inches DBH. The applicant is proposing to plant 108 inches DBH on-site, including 36 inches of maritime hardwood species — more than the 48 -inch standard obligation but far less than the 310 -inch doubled obligation. Director Askew noted that the variance grounds available under Chapter 23 are distinct from those under Section 24-65: the Board must find one of only four specific conditions, including existing topographic elevation changes that would result in planted materials being unlikely to survive. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 Applicant Presentation Ben Lavarias, representing both the property owner Ultera Group and contractor Mako Development, provided the applicant's account. He explained that the owner had walked the property with a then -city staff member early in the process, believing this constituted a preliminary tree identification inspection. Time elapsed before construction began, and when the applications were filed — for both the tree permit and the building permit — the release of the building permit was assumed to confirm that all approvals, including the tree permit, were in place. Lavarias acknowledged that the critical missing step was a phone call to schedule the barricade inspection, characterizing it as a clerical oversight rather than a deliberate circumvention. He stated that the primary trees removed were large trees directly within the building footprint, with only a few ancillary palm trees removed due to overhang conflicts. He emphasized that the double -mitigation penalty — which he estimated at approximately $23,000 in tree fund payments or equivalent planting — felt disproportionate to the nature of the offense, particularly given that the city's concurrent building -and -tree permitting process created a structural ambiguity. He noted that the city has since changed its process to require tree permit issuance before building permits are released, which he argued is itself evidence of a procedural gap that contributed to the confusion. Lavarias argued that 310 inches of DBH replacement would be physically impossible to plant on the property in a way that would allow any of the trees to thrive — the landscape architect had advised that planting more than 108 inches would result in overcrowding that would kill the trees. He cited the first approval criterion regarding topographic and site conditions preventing planted materials from surviving as grounds for reducing the required mitigation to 108 inches, with no additional monetary payment. Chris Malone, identified as the property owner who personally walked the site and was present during flagging, corroborated Lavarias's account. He stated that flagged trees were diseased, dying, or broken in most cases, and that a $125 permit fee had not been paid — not because of any desire to circumvent the process, but due to an oversight in the midst of coordinating a complex construction project. He stated he would never have taken a 20,000 -dollar risk to save $125. Public Comment Marisa Carbone, a neighbor across the street who witnessed the construction, offered a starkly different account: she alleged that the developer had proceeded with tree removal as soon as funding was available, without regard for the permit process, and that overbuild on the lot had left no room for mitigation planting because a pool was planned for the rear yard. She argued that ignorance of the rules is not a defense. Suzanne Barker argued that other property owners who have removed trees without a permit have been required to pay the mitigation fees, and that this applicant should not receive special treatment. She characterized Atlantic Beach as a "Tree City" with strong community values around canopy preservation. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 Sarah Boren of 388 8th Street, who also serves on the Environmental Stewardship Committee, offered a nuanced perspective. She acknowledged that the applicant's account sounded consistent with an honest mistake, noting that the tree permit application does require a signature affirming that the applicant has read and understands the process. She observed that the lot had previously been a single-family property with a well-known long-time resident, and that the community was braced for significant tree loss upon development. She raised an additional concern about whether clearing had occurred beyond the silt fence boundary, potentially into the upland buffers associated with the wetlands on the southern portion of the property. Steve Fouraker of 6th Street spoke briefly, directing his remarks to other members of the public rather than the Board. He noted that the CDB functions as a quasi-judicial body and makes decisions based on the law as written, not on what may feel appropriate, and encouraged confidence in the process. Board Discussion Haynie described himself as torn, calling the penalty "extreme" on its face while also acknowledging the difficulty of assessing motives from the dais. He was sympathetic to the innocent -mistake argument but struggled to map that sympathy onto the specific approval criteria available under Chapter 23. Moody observed that the city's own concurrent permitting process — which allowed a building permit to be issued while the tree permit was still incomplete — appeared to have contributed to the applicant's confusion, and that the city had since corrected that process, which he viewed as an implicit acknowledgment of the gap. He noted, however, that the Chapter 23 variance criteria do not expressly address procedural mitigating circumstances. Ferrin observed that while the situation was sympathetic, none of the four Chapter 23 criteria clearly applied. He nonetheless raised the question of whether the 310 -inch obligation — and the associated financial penalty — was truly commensurate with what was described as a single missed phone call and inspection scheduling failure. He and Moody discussed whether a prior referral to the Environmental Stewardship Committee had produced any recommendation for reduction; Director Askew clarified that the ESC's jurisdiction extends only to affirming or reversing staffs legal interpretation of the code, not to granting relief — only the CDB can provide relief. Haynie ultimately identified a potential path: the first Chapter 23 criterion — "existing topographic elevation changes that would result in the likelihood that preserved or planted materials would not survive" — could be read, somewhat broadly, to encompass the physical impossibility of planting 310 inches of DBH on the lot without the overcrowding killing the vegetation. He proposed that the Board approve a lesser variance, reducing the required mitigation to the 108 inches the applicant proposed to plant, with no additional monetary payment, on the basis of that criterion. MOTION: To APPROVE ZVAR26-0017 based upon existing topographic and site elevation conditions that would result in the likelihood that planted materials would not survive if planted at the doubled volume Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 Motion: Jeff Haynie Second. Doug Moody Motion passed 4 to 0. E. 1261 Gladiola Street ZVAR26-0018 (Beth Viol!) Request for a variance to Section 24-89 (d) for floodplain storage and Section 24-89 (c) for compensatory storage (stormwater storage). Staff Presentation Environmental Planner and Coordinator Planner Jamieson presented this case, describing it as similar in legal structure to Item 4.A but factually distinct in several important respects. The property at 1261 Gladiola Street is located directly adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) floodplain — to the west of Mayport Road — and falls within the Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LIMWA), a FEMA designation that requires homes to be built on stilts and imposes additional structural requirements. There is a tidal ditch toward the rear. The property is zoned RS -2 and is entirely located within the ICW floodplain, Zone AE on FEMA maps. Planner Jamieson explained that this case originated from a 2024 new single-family home permit. Unlike Item 4.A, the plans in this case were approved during plan review, the house has already been built on stilts as required by LIMWA, and the variance request represents the final compliance item blocking a Public Works final approval and certificate of occupancy (CO). The same dual triggers apply: the lot coverage of 35.36 percent —just barely over the 35 percent threshold — triggers stormwater storage, and the fill associated with the elevated foundation (pilings) and a required elevated septic drain field triggers floodplain storage. The original approved plans showed compensatory storage to be provided underneath the elevated house. However, when the builder attempted to excavate for that storage area, groundwater was encountered at only six inches below existing grade — far shallower than anticipated — making it physically impossible to achieve the required one -foot separation above the seasonal high water table. Staff confirmed that the original plan approval was likely in error, as groundwater conditions should have been assessed prior to approval. Planner Jamieson read at length from an email by Public Works Engineer Angela, which unequivocally stated: "I believe the site's existing conditions create a situation where strict compliance with Section 24-89 is not physically achievable." Angela further noted that constructing a retention system in these conditions would be unlikely to function as intended because the storage area would remain saturated by groundwater and thus unable to provide detention volume during storm events. She recommended pursuing a variance and eliminating the on-site retention requirement for the project. Building Official Gideon had been asked to weigh in and concurred, noting that an open pond beneath the elevated house — even if achievable — would create long-term moisture and structural concerns for the home. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 Planner Jamieson noted a key distinction from Item 4.A: because this property is located directly on the ICW rather than in the riverine floodplain, it would not need to come before the CDB for floodplain storage under a proposed floodplain ordinance update currently being considered — though that update would not affect the stormwater component. Three options were presented: approve (no compensatory storage required), approve with conditions (requiring storage that does not conflict with the one -foot groundwater separation requirement), or deny (resulting in no CO being issued for the already -completed home). Board Questions Moody asked whether boring reports or soil testing had been required before the original plan was approved. Planner Jamieson confirmed that no such testing had been required or obtained at the time of the plan approval, and that this was a contributing factor to the oversight. Moody noted that when pilings were being driven, groundwater should have been apparent immediately and questioned whether that should have triggered an earlier flag. Haynie asked a series of clarifying questions to establish that the stormwater retention (triggered by slightly exceeding 35 percent coverage) and the floodplain compensation (triggered by fill from the pilings and septic drain field) were both encompassed in the originally approved under -house drainage plan, and that everything the builder constructed was permitted and approved at the time of construction. Planner Jamieson confirmed this. Ferrin summarized the sequence: the plan was approved with the under - house storage solution; the permit was issued; the house was built; only upon beginning the excavation for the storage area did the shallow groundwater reveal that the approved plan was unachievable. Planner Jamieson confirmed that summary. Haynie sought clarification on the proposed ordinance update: if it were adopted, this property's floodplain storage obligation would be eliminated by rule, though the stormwater component (triggered by the marginal 35.36 percent coverage) would remain. Even that residual stormwater component could not be satisfied given the groundwater conditions. Applicant Presentation Beth Violi, representing Colour Homes (the contractor), and the homeowners, the Johnsons, spoke briefly. She described the extensive effort and expense the firm had expended in hiring multiple civil engineers to attempt compliance, and confirmed that the variance was sought only after those efforts failed and the city itself concluded that compliance was not physically achievable. She stated that Color Homes is committed to environmental stewardship and would not have come before the Board had there been any viable path to compliance. Public Comment Brian Vonn of 1209 West Plaza, who lives on the east side of the tidal creek that borders the property, spoke at length. He stated that residents of the Gladiola Street area are well Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 aware of the extreme water table conditions — the city has installed "Street Floods" warning signs in the neighborhood, king tides bring saltwater into the street each fall, and he has personally canoed through the neighborhood during northeaster storms. He did not oppose granting the variance but requested that conditions be imposed — specifically, a berm or other measure to prevent runoff from silting the tidal creek and harming the wading birds that use it, and a restriction on chemical lawn treatments given that runoff flows directly into the ICW and tidal creek without any retention. He also raised broader concerns about the city's oversight of problematic development in the neighborhood, referencing a nearby home built below legal elevation and another failed project with uncapped rebar pits remaining on-site. A second neighbor, Greg, of 1301 Gladiola Street (identifying himself as living in the "domed house" adjacent to the subject property), corroborated Vonn's account of groundwater conditions. He testified that as soon as excavation began for the pilings, the site "looked like a swoon" — requiring well points and pump equipment to dewater before piling installation could proceed. He expressed frustration that this clear evidence of groundwater did not trigger an earlier course correction, and sympathy for the homeowners now caught in the consequences. Director Askew, responding to Haynie's question about whether a berm or other protective condition could be required, advised against it — adding fill in the floodplain would worsen the compensatory storage obligation. She noted that the required 20 -foot rear yard setback would serve as a natural buffer before any runoff reached the tidal ditch, and that the property was not graded to direct runoff toward the ditch. Board Discussion Moody acknowledged that "somebody dropped the ball" in the approval and inspection process, but noted that the house is built and the owners have invested substantially in good faith. He concluded that the exceptional topographic conditions of the property — specifically the extreme proximity of the groundwater table to the surface — would warrant approval of the variance. Haynie stated clearly what he viewed as the decisive distinction between this case and Item 4.A: "This is already built. These aren't plans that are wanting, you know, more than maybe should be granted, but it's already built, and it was built because it's approved." He acknowledged that without granting the variance, a major financial hardship would be imposed on owners who had done nothing outside the bounds of their permits. He stated he "almost didn't know how we don't grant this." Chair Hansen agreed the situation had become a practical matter: the house exists, and without a CO, it sits unused. He was uncomfortable with how the situation developed but recognized that the public works director's own recommendation supported the variance. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 MOTION. To APPROVE ZVAR26-0018 based on exceptional topographic conditions. Motion: Rick Ferrin Second. Jeff Haynie Motion passed 4 to 0. F. 150 Levy Road UBEX26-0002 (David Main) Request for a use -by -exception approval for a craftsmen and artist operations in a building that exceeds 2,500 square feet, as required by Section 24-175(d) Code of Ordinances within the Mayport business overlay district at RE # 171066-0100. Staff Presentation Director Askew presented this use -by -exception request. The subject property is an undeveloped, vacant lot located on the southwest corner of Levy Road and Orchid Street, with a third frontage on West 14th Street, in the Mayport business overlay district. The underlying zoning is Commercial General (CG). The purpose and intent of the Mayport overlay district is to encourage economic development through a mix of commercial and light industrial uses along the corridor. The applicant, David Main, operates an artistic metal fabrication business currently across the street on Levy Road, in a building located in the Light Industrial and Warehouse (LIW) zoning district where such use is permitted by right. The subject property, however, is zoned Commercial General, and the Mayport overlay district permits craftsman and artisan operations as a use by exception when the building to be used exceeds 2,500 square feet. Because the applicant's planned building will exceed that threshold, a use -by -exception approval is required. Director Askew provided zoning context: to the north of the subject property is the industrial district; to the south along Levy Road are various commercial uses; and to the south of West 14th Street is a residential zoning district (RG) with one- and two-family homes. This adjacency to residential uses was noted as a consideration, triggering a required 10 -foot landscape buffer along that boundary under commercial -to -residential adjacency standards. Director Askew summarized the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Policy 1. 10.4 directs the city to actively support appropriate redevelopment of the Mayport Road corridor with retail and service uses that sustain neighborhoods and encourage pedestrian -friendly environments. Policy 1.10.5 discourages the continuation and proliferation of light industrial and intensive commercial uses along the Mayport corridor in favor of neighborhood -serving, daily -activity -generating uses. Staff noted that the proposed use — an artisan fabrication operation — sits in some tension with Policy 1.10.5's preference for neighborhood -serving retail and services, though it is expressly permitted as a use by exception in the overlay district code. Under Section 24- 63(d), the Board must evaluate whether the use would produce excessive noise, glare, lighting, odor, or traffic adverse to adjoining properties, and whether it is compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 Applicant Presentation David Main, identified as an Atlantic Beach resident of nine years and owner of the metal fabrication business, provided a detailed presentation that included renderings and a three-dimensional model of the proposed development. He explained that he has operated the business across the street for nine years — first renting 4,500 square feet and later expanding to the full 9,000 square feet of the building — with no noise complaints or code violations of any kind. The subject lot has sat vacant and in a deteriorated condition for the entire time he has been a neighbor; he recently purchased it with the intent to develop it for his business and remain in the community. Main described the proposed building configuration as an L -shape, with the structure running along the rear and one side of the lot in a way that would direct any noise toward Levy Road rather than toward the residential properties on West 14th Street. The planned entry and exit would be primarily from Levy Road, consistent with the existing business operations across the street. He confirmed that all metalworking operations are conducted indoors — both for practical reasons (tools, power, climate) and because the Florida heat makes outdoor work dangerous — and that no raw materials or finished products are stored outside. Business hours are 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Main noted that the property would be required to meet landscape buffer requirements adjacent to the residential zone, and that he intends to preserve and supplement existing trees around the perimeter of the lot. A tree mitigation permit is already in progress. He estimated that the proposed building requires seven parking spaces and that his current plans accommodate 12. The pre-engineered metal building would be complemented by stacked shipping containers used creatively for office space, providing an architectural character he described as visually engaging and appropriate for the Mayport corridor aesthetic. Fischer Anderson, a neighbor and friend of the applicant from the surrounding community, spoke in support of the character of both the applicant and the project. He noted that the vacant lot had historically attracted transients, with refuse and on one occasion a body found in abandoned vehicles on the property. He expressed strong support for the improved condition of the lot since the applicant's purchase and clearing. Board Discussion Moody observed that the proposal appeared to fit well within the city's objectives for the Mayport area, with the only technical issue being the building size exceeding the 2,500 - square -foot threshold that triggers the use -by -exception requirement. All other characteristics — hours of operation, indoor operations, parking, landscape buffering, and no prior complaints — appeared consistent with what the overlay district envisions. Haynie concurred that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan provisions and the requirements of Section 24-63 and Section 24-175. Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026 5. 6. 7. Attest: MOTION: To APPROVE UBEX26-0002 based on its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with the applicable requirements of Sections 24-63 and 24-175. Motion: Jeff Haynie Second. Doug Moody Motion passed 4 to 0. REPORTS Director Askew advised the Board that the proposed floodplain regulation update would be brought forward for discussion at the next regular meeting. She indicated that revised draft language would be distributed to Board members in advance. Director Askew noted that the item had been intentionally omitted from the current evening's agenda, given the volume of business and anticipated Board absences, to avoid an extremely late meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Sarah Boren of 388 8th Street thanked the Board for its diligence and the quality of deliberation on a challenging evening of decisions. No other public comment was offered. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Chair Hansen declared the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Amanda As ew, Neighborhoods Director Kirk Hansen, Chair Community Development Board (CDB) August 25, 2026