Orange Park board reviews draft historic-preservation ordinance, awaits town attorney and council action

Members of the Town of Orange Park Historic Preservation Board spent most of their meeting reviewing a draft historic-preservation ordinance intended to make the town eligible for Certified Local Government (CLG) status and related grant programs, but they did not adopt the draft and deferred further action pending review by the town attorney and eventual council consideration.

The board discussed the history and purpose of the draft ordinance, which board members said was meant to protect midcentury and older architecture in Orange Park, enable surveys and district nominations, and position the town for state and National Main Street funding. The board repeatedly described the draft as the product of several years of work by volunteers, local preservation advocates and consultants and said the Florida State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) had provided preliminary sign-off that the draft meets CLG-related standards.

Board members said the draft would create a historic-preservation overlay and a process for surveys, inventories and designation of historic districts; it would not itself create districts until the town council approved any nominations and the board completed required surveys. The board coalesced around two stated goals: establishing an ordinance that is CLG-compatible so the town can pursue grant funding and ensuring the ordinance does not impose unnecessary aesthetic rules on homeowners.

In their discussion, members identified several outstanding procedural and policy questions the town attorney had flagged in a late email, including whether the ordinance’s text aligns with existing town code (the draft proposes specific amendments to a chapter the board referenced during the meeting), how enforcement would coordinate with town code compliance, and whether administrative-level Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) review by staff is appropriate for smaller changes.

A recurring point of debate noted in the meeting was whether the ordinance should apply to all existing owners immediately or only upon a change of ownership. Board members said earlier drafts had allowed voluntary participation or application on change of control, but a previous SHPO reviewer told them CLG eligibility typically requires the ordinance to apply uniformly rather than only on sale. One board member said the state reviewer has changed over time and that final requirements may need reconfirmation.

Board members said the town has at least one older survey (they cited a River Road survey from about 1998) but that it is dated and incomplete; if the ordinance is adopted and CLG status sought, a new, townwide inventory survey would be eligible for grant funding and would form the basis for any district maps. Members discussed that any resulting survey and inventory would include public notice and an opportunity for property owners to object during the designation process.

On implementation and enforcement, the board noted that many exterior changes already require a town permit and that code enforcement would still handle permit violations. The draft ordinance would add a COA review for designated historic properties, but the board said that review is intended to be case-by-case and would not, in their view, impose blanket restrictions such as mandated paint colors.

Board members described the process timeline: attorney review of the draft; a recommended workshop with the town council to explain the ordinance; council consideration and vote; if approved, application or coordination with SHPO for CLG certification; and a likely survey/grant phase to identify districts. They said the town’s 2040 plan listed historic preservation among multi-year goals and that the effort has been slowed by turnover in town attorneys, council changes and other administrative delays.

Votes at a glance: The board approved the minutes from the October meeting by voice vote, recorded as passing 4 to 0. The meeting later adopted a motion to adjourn, also passed by voice vote.

The board requested that the town attorney join a future meeting to discuss her late email comments and that staff provide links or copies of the SHPO contacts and relevant preservation standards. No ordinance amendments or formal recommendations were sent to the council during the meeting; the board left the draft pending attorney feedback and plans for a public workshop or additional outreach before council consideration.