Note to reporter: The uploaded document contains the published agenda for the April 21, 2026 CDB meeting plus the draft minutes from the March 17, 2026 CDB meeting (Item 2.A. on the April agenda). There are no adopted minutes or staff-recorded outcomes for the April 21 items (4.A., 4.B., 4.C., 5.A.) — only staff reports and applications. All findings about what was decided on April 21 are therefore drawn from staff reports and agenda materials, not minutes. Confidence on all April 21 items is low. The March 17 outcomes are well-documented in the draft minutes.

At a glance

The April 21, 2026 City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Board had three live variance requests and a floodplain code update report. No adopted minutes for this meeting were supplied, so outcomes on April 21 items cannot be confirmed. The most documented action on the record is from the March 17, 2026 prior meeting (included as draft minutes for Item 2.A. approval): the board voted 7-0 to approve ZVAR26-0006 for 1067 Beach Avenue on grounds of irregular property shape and substandard lot size.¹ That same meeting also featured a substantive staff-driven discussion on proposed floodplain storage code language targeting an ICW carve-out, with multiple board members flagging confusing double-negatives. For April 21, the three new variance requests — a drainage-disaster impervious surface relief, an unpermitted porch remodel with stairs crossing a property line, and a re-filed floodplain storage variance on a fully flood-zone lot — are all newsworthy but outcomes are unconfirmed.

Newsworthy items

Item 2.A. (Prior meeting): ZVAR26-0006 — 1067 Beach Avenue nonconforming porch expansion (Mandarin Emporium, Inc.)

• Recommended: no committee or staff recommendation recorded; Principal Planner Jamieson presented with factual analysis of nonconforming status.
• Decided: PASSED — approved ZVAR26-0006 to allow expansion of a nonconforming structure and continuation into required side yard setbacks.
• Vote: 7-0, unanimous.
• Flags: public-comment-heavy
• Confidence: high

The 1927-built house at the corner of Eleventh Street and Beach Avenue sits on a 30-foot-wide nonconforming lot in a residential general multifamily zone, with the existing structure failing to meet the 15-foot total side yard setback requirement — neither side reaches 5 feet.² An active code enforcement violation and stop work order were already on the property when the variance came to staff's attention via a DEP zoning confirmation letter request.³ The applicant's contractor, Rich Trendel of Petra Contracting, told the board the owners "just" thought they were enclosing under an existing porch and didn't realize full permitting requirements applied.⁴ Vice Chair Golombek, though typically opposed to setback reductions, ran the math aloud — a 30-foot lot with 15-foot setbacks leaves only a 15-foot house — and concluded they should "just get it right as far as meeting variances and things like that and let them move forward."⁵

Item 2.B. (Prior meeting): Section 24-89 Floodplain Storage Code Discussion

• Recommended: Staff (Planner Jamieson) presented proposed new code language carving ICW-adjacent properties out of the no-net-loss requirement.
• Decided: Discussion only — no vote taken; board reached consensus that language needed clarity revisions before advancing.
• Vote: no roll call recorded.
• Flags: surprise-amendment (language revisions proposed from the floor)
• Confidence: high

Staff was tasked from prior meetings to develop a legislative change to Section 24-89 because the code wasn't clearly indicating floodplain storage requirements — especially for areas subject to the Intracoastal Waterway system.⁶ The proposed distinction: ICW-adjacent properties flood by tidal inundation, not upstream riverine flow, and because the ICW is a very large water body, small residential fill does not measurably affect the 100-year flood elevation.⁷ Member Haynie flagged the proposed clause "and for drainage ditches or canals that do not discharge to the intracoastal waterway" as potentially confusing — he wanted to know if those ditches were also supposed to be excluded from the no-net-loss requirement.⁸ Chair Hansen concluded there was consensus the board was on the right track but that changes were needed so the language would be understandable on first reading, rather than requiring multiple passes to parse the negatives.⁹

Item 4.A.: ZVAR26-0007 — 1554 Linkside Drive impervious surface variance (Patricia Wallace)

• Recommended: no committee or staff recommendation recorded; staff report by Principal Planner Jamieson lays out facts and notes Selva Linkside ARC has approved the applicant's plans.
• Decided: minutes do not record the April 21 outcome.
• Vote: no roll call recorded.
• Confidence: low

The new owner, who purchased in November 2025, discovered the prior owner had illegally paved the entire backyard and walkways without permits, creating a 73.5% impervious surface ratio.¹⁰ Excessive water caused mold, wood rot, and stucco damage; the applicant proposes removing most hardscape, installing permeable pavers in the driveway, replacing backyard pavers with four French drains and permeable gravel, and adding a small spa.¹¹ The Selva Linkside Architectural Review Committee approved the plans; however, a variance is still required because even after all remediation, the lot will sit at 50.6% impervious — 5.6 points above the 45% city maximum.¹² The "clean-up-someone-else's-mess" framing is strong — this is a new homeowner asking for relief to fix a prior owner's code violation, not to add coverage.

Item 4.B.: ZVAR26-0008 — 95 10th Street setback variance (Debra Taylor/Worley)

• Recommended: Staff report by Neighborhoods Director Amanda Askew; no explicit recommendation for or against recorded.
• Decided: minutes do not record the April 21 outcome.
• Vote: no roll call recorded.
• Flags: public-comment-heavy (staff report implies neighbor encroachment issue)
• Confidence: low

ZVAR26-0008 is a request for a variance to Section 24-151(h)(2) for attached accessory structure rear and side yard setbacks at a corner townhome unit built in 1959 at 10th Street and Beach Avenue, zoned Residential Multifamily.¹³ In 2025, the applicant's husband pulled a fence permit (RFNCE25-0123), plans were approved, but the city inspector found the applicant had built beyond the permitted scope — including a porch remodel connecting to both the fence and the primary structure.¹⁴ The porch remodel includes stairs that cross onto the neighbor's property, and the homeowner did not remove the unpermitted structure, resulting in an active code enforcement violation.¹⁵ A 2025 survey shows the covered porch sitting at 0.4 feet from the rear property line and 0.1 feet from the side property line.¹⁶ This is the second active-code-violation case on the April 21 agenda — a pattern worth noting.

Item 4.C.: ZVAR26-0009 — 600 Begonia Street floodplain storage variance (BCEL 10C LLC)

• Recommended: Staff report by Neighborhoods Director Askew; the city engineer confirms net loss of water volume; staff notes ICW-adjacent properties may not require compensatory storage under the proposed new code language.
• Decided: minutes do not record the April 21 outcome.
• Vote: no roll call recorded.
• Flags: deferred-again (prior variance ZVAR19-0007 expired before this lot was developed)
• Confidence: low

BCEL 10C LLC owns a corner lot at West 6th Street and Begonia Street, platted in 1944, planned for a single-family home, fully inside the AE flood zone, and surrounded by tidal canals connecting to the ICW.¹⁷ In 2019 this parcel was part of a 6-lot variance (ZVAR19-0007); the board denied stormwater compensation but approved floodplain storage 3-1 conditioned on smart foundation vents.¹⁸ Five of the six lots were built before that variance expired; 600 Begonia missed the deadline and must re-apply.¹⁹ The city engineer found the proposed stem wall fill takes up floodplain storage, though the garage can use flood vents per building code.²⁰ This case is the direct trigger for the floodplain code rewrite discussion at the prior meeting — the board is essentially being asked to grant a variance under the old code for a situation the new code language would resolve.

Item 5.A.: Floodplain Storage Code Update Memo

• Recommended: Staff (Askew) presenting revised draft language for Section 24-89(d) based on March CDB feedback.
• Decided: discussion/report item only; no vote scheduled.
• Vote: no roll call recorded.
• Confidence: medium

Following the March CDB meeting, staff was asked to develop code language to address the riverine vs. ICW distinction; a first reading occurred March 12, 2026, and the board recommended revisions.²¹ The April 21 draft proposes that for areas in a special flood hazard area where FEMA has defined a base flood elevation, there shall be no net loss of floodplain storage for development projects, except those discharging to the saltmarsh directly adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway.²² The revised draft tightens the prior confusing "drainage ditches or canals" clause that tripped up members in March. This code change, if ultimately adopted, would prospectively moot variance requests like ZVAR26-0009.

Consent agenda

No consent block on this agenda.

Skipped

Call to order and roll call (Item 1), approval of minutes (Item 2.A. — covered as prior-meeting context above), blank/signature pages, photo pages (pp. 32–36, 43–44), warranty deed boilerplate, surveyor certifications, and the blank page 12 were not covered. The adjournment at 6:40 p.m. noted in the March 17 minutes is procedural.

References