Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater And Water Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves retaining wall at 173 Inlet Drive with stormwater and tree-protection conditions
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Board approved construction of a retaining wall and related fill at 173 Inlet Drive, allowing a new single‑family home to be built provided the applicant implements the on‑site stormwater measures and supplies an arborist report to protect an existing 19‑inch live oak.
The Planning and Zoning Board on March 4 approved a conservation-overlay development application to allow construction of a retaining wall, associated fill and a new single-family house at 173 Inlet Drive, contingent on stormwater controls and tree‑protection measures.
Board members voted to approve the application after hearing a staff report and a presentation from the applicant’s consultant, Tom Bartlett, and receiving public comment from two nearby residents who said they have experienced silt and drainage problems from current work on the lot.
The applicant said the proposed design would use bioswales, underground retention and pervious pavers to meet St. Johns River Water Management District first‑flush treatment standards. “We’re going to control the runoff rates and volumes with underground retention and swales,” Bartlett told the board, and handed members pre‑ and post‑development calculations that staff had not finished reviewing prior to the meeting. He said the proposal would store more treatment volume on site than the minimum required by the district.
Neighbors said they remain concerned about windblown sand and runoff. “Bringing an 8 feet of overburden onto a lot and then shaving 6 feet off of it doesn’t make sense to me,” said Zig Ziglar, a nearby homeowner. Dr. Nathan Patrick Hale, whose property is adjacent, asked the board to require the applicant direct some flows toward Salt Run rather than send all runoff to Inlet Drive. The applicant responded that direct discharge to the waterway would be disfavored under water‑management practice but that the design seeks to match pre‑development flow patterns and provide onsite treatment.
After board discussion the motion to approve included these conditions captured in the motion: a house finished‑floor elevation of 12 feet and a garage elevation of 9 feet as shown on the amended plans; implementation of the swales/bioswales and pervious paver system described in the applicant’s stormwater calculations; protection of a 19‑inch live oak with a requirement that any work within the tree protection zone be accompanied by an arborist report at building permit; and that engineering details be finalized with staff review.
The motion passed on a roll call vote with all members present voting yes. The board’s approval was conditioned on the applicant delivering the engineering details and the required arborist documentation before building permits are issued.
The applicant and staff said they would provide the final engineering and the arborist report during the building‑permit review so the city can confirm the retention volumes and the tree‑protection measures before construction begins.
