St. Augustine planning board backs new lot-grading and flood-resilience rules, asks staff to set garage-size allowance

The St. Augustine Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend a package of zoning changes and conservation overlay amendments intended to create clearer, tiered review for lot grading and to reduce neighborhood flooding impacts from single-family and duplex development.

City staff presented proposed amendments to Chapter 28 (zoning supplementary regulations) and Chapter 11 (environmental/conservation overlay) that add a formal “lot grading” review process for one- and two-family residences, clarify when staff may approve bulkheads and retaining walls, and set numerical limits for fill and wall dimensions.

Sarah Dougherty, senior planner, told the board the changes create a hierarchy of review intended to encourage pier/piling foundations and other low-impact designs so homeowners can avoid more intensive civil review. “If you’re on piers or pilings or a crawlspace with less than 6 inches of fill, you would not need a lot-grading plan review,” Dougherty said. She added that the package references DEP best-management practices for erosion control and uses FEMA flood maps to determine base flood elevation when applying fill limits.

Why it matters: board members said the rules are intended to give staff clearer standards to prevent situations where new development worsens flooding on neighboring lots — a problem the board cited in neighborhoods such as Coquina, Davis Shores and portions of Pelican Reef.

What the code would do: under the proposed language shared with the board, residential projects would follow a flowchart of review that generally does the following: - Category 1: piers/pilings or crawl space with under 6 inches of fill — administrative, minimal review. - Category 2: lots within neighborhoods that have an approved stormwater/master drainage plan — streamlined staff review to confirm consistency with the plan; variance to the board if unique conditions exist. - Category 3: lots in neighborhoods without an approved stormwater plan — lot-grading plan review with preset fill limits; proposals that exceed those limits must provide engineered plans and demonstrate they will not adversely affect neighboring properties and, where necessary, proceed to civil/site plan review.

Key numerical and technical standards discussed by staff and board: - Maximum ordinary fill: 1 foot above the highest adjacent grade or 0.5 foot above the property’s base flood elevation on FEMA maps; fill within a stem-wall foundation may exceed the base flood elevation as necessary. - Final grade shall fall to a minimum of 6 inches above existing grade within the first 10 feet; the final grade along property boundaries must match adjacent lots. - Retaining walls: maximum height defined as 3 feet (top of wall minus bottom of wall elevation) and must be set back 3 feet from property lines; bulkheads are differentiated from retaining walls and flood walls and include new permitting criteria. - Flood walls: follow fence guidelines but require that at least 30% of the property remain outside the flood wall and that driveways and other pervious surfaces of at least 3 feet be retained. - Conservation overlay: existing three-zone structure retained (zone 1: waterward of jurisdictional wetland line; zone 2: within 100 feet landward; zone 3: inland). Staff proposed that a 25-foot wetland buffer be retained or restored where lots drain to wetlands; if a lot drains to wetlands and lacks a restored/retained 25-foot buffer, an application would go to the board. - Bulkhead staff approval: staff may approve some bulkheads where all adjacent properties already have bulkheads and either the proposed top-of-wall elevation is no more than 7 feet or no higher than the lowest adjacent top-of-wall elevation with a maximum of 10 feet.

Board discussion focused on practical consequences and exceptions. Mike Davis asked whether the changes would prevent past situations — such as permitting a retaining wall plus five feet of fill that raised neighboring yards — and staff said the chapter 28 lot-grading limits and chapter 11 language would give the city more enforcement “teeth.” Several board members raised real-world concerns about garages built with partial fill and about yards that retain nuisance standing water after storms (noting mosquito problems in Davis Shores). The board asked staff to define how much garage area could be allowed under the more permissive administrative track; members discussed 20–25% of the first-floor footprint as an example but deferred to staff to study typical garage sizes and recommend a percentage.

Legal and procedural constraints: board members and staff discussed a recently effective state law (effective July 1) that limits local land-use changes that are “more burdensome” to property owners. City staff and the board concluded the proposed package is overall less burdensome because it creates clearer administrative paths that will reduce the number of projects required to appear before the board.

Board action and instructions to staff: the board moved to recommend the initiative to the city commission, asked staff to return with a suggested single-family garage-size percentage to allow limited fill under category 1, and asked staff to tidy wording and minor edits before transmitting the package to the commission. The motion recorded at the meeting included a statement that the package is not more burdensome and provides multiple administrative paths for applicants; the board voted by roll call (see “Votes at a glance” below).

Votes at a glance - Motion to recommend the initiative to develop more resilient criteria for building and flood prevention, with staff direction to set a percentage allowance for attached garages and to make minor wording edits before transmittal: approved by roll call, 5–0. Vote record (as read at the meeting): Mike Davis — Yes; Charles Pappas — Yes; Matthew Schafer — Yes; Carl Blow — Yes; Christina (surname recorded variously in the transcript as “Zucker” and later as “Tucker”) — Yes.

What’s next: city staff will finalize the ordinance/redline language, set the percentage allowance for garage fill as directed, and forward the recommended changes to the City Commission for formal consideration.

Ending note: board members said the new standards aim to balance homeowner flexibility and neighborhood protection by providing clear administrative paths while reserving civil/site plan review where fill and structural changes could increase flood risk for neighboring properties.