St. Augustine planning board begins work to curb fill, strengthen flood-resilience rules

City planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Board on Feb. 19 began drafting interim rules aimed at reducing the use of fill and tightening flood‑resilience requirements for new construction and major renovations in St. Augustine.

The discussion, led by Amy Skinner, director of the Planning and Building Department, and city technical staff, centered on whether the city should prohibit or limit placement of fill in the Special Flood Hazard Area, raise freeboard requirements and adopt a two‑track review system that allows routine projects to gain administrative approval if they meet “do no harm” standards while sending atypical proposals to public hearing.

The issue matters because staff say substantial amounts of imported soil and high finished‑floor elevations on small urban lots can reduce local flood storage and shift flood risk to adjacent properties. "We have to address the issue of fill in the city if we are going to discuss fill, if we're going to regulate fill in any way," Amy Skinner said, noting state and federal review will affect what the city can adopt.

Why this matters

City officials described multiple drivers for new rules: recurring compound flooding in low‑lying neighborhoods, the potential for state preemption of fill rules, and opportunities to gain discounts on flood insurance through the Community Rating System (CRS). "We're dealing with a lot of compound flooding," Jessica Beach, the city's chief resilience officer, said after returning from a regional resilience meeting. Staff highlighted North and South Davis Shores as neighborhoods with concentrated property entries into the FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) pipeline.

Key points from the meeting

- FEMA, state and local programs: Staff reviewed federal and state programs that affect local policy. Buddy Schallen, the city's building official and floodplain manager, explained that the city participates in the Community Rating System; St. Augustine currently has about 3,025 CRS points (class 5) and the staff said one CRS prerequisite for moving to class 4 is a watershed management plan. The city is pursuing FEMA's Flood Mitigation Assistance grants for property buyouts or elevation and is wrapping a FY2022 cohort toward contracts.

- Fill, freeboard and points: Staff described CRS scoring incentives: the city's existing 1‑foot freeboard yields significant CRS points and, according to staff, prohibiting fill could add points as well. Ray Deshler, the floodplain coordinator, said prohibitions or stricter standards for fill are among the highest‑impact options staff identified, but must be weighed against administrative cost and practicality. "FEMA is a big fan of no fill," Deshler said, adding that prohibitions can boost CRS credits but must be written and reviewed carefully.

- Current ordinance limits: Staff explained the city's floodplain management ordinance currently lacks a clear mechanism to deny an applicant who shows fill is the "minimum necessary" for an intended purpose. Buddy Schallen said the ordinance contains one provision requiring evidence that proposed fill is ‘‘the minimum necessary to achieve the intended purpose,” but staff said that language leaves discretion largely to applicants. The state Department of Emergency Management (FDEM) reviews any ordinance changes affecting floodplain management before FEMA review.

- Technical and administrative options: Staff presented a menu of measures from high‑impact (complete prohibition of fill in SFHAs; restricting slab‑on‑grade and backfill stem‑wall foundations; raising freeboard to 2–3 feet) to moderate or low impact (limits on allowable depth of fill on a lot, certification of no‑adverse‑impact by a licensed professional, applying flood rules to Zone X for new construction, and lot coverage/impervious surface limits). Ray Deshler described a staff scoring matrix to compare a proposed project with adjoining lots on metrics such as lot area filled, foundation type and shoreline impacts.

- Equity and enforcement concerns: Board members and residents repeatedly raised concerns about older homeowners and whether stricter standards would displace long‑time residents. Charles Pappas and others urged simple, easy‑to‑understand rules. Public speakers asked for grandfathering or tailored exceptions for long‑time residents. John Benoit (David Shores) warned against a blanket ban on fill without considering long‑term consequences and financing needs for owners, while Donna Dove (South Davis Shores) asked staff to consider grandfathering and residents' lived experience.

Public feedback and outreach

Several residents urged more interactive outreach and technical assistance. Lauren Guyber described investing $12,000 in an encapsulated crawl space to address moisture and requested clear, practical guidance for other homeowners. Contractor and resident comments addressed accessibility and maintenance tradeoffs for elevated (pier) foundations versus slab construction.

Board and staff next steps

The Planning and Zoning Board agreed to pursue an interim, two‑track approach: (1) develop clearer administrative standards and illustrations that would allow common, lower‑impact projects to be approved by staff if they meet "do no harm" technical profiles; and (2) retain a public‑hearing path for atypical or higher‑impact proposals that require case‑specific review. Staff committed to a public, stakeholder workshop in March, to return to the board with a draft ordinance or amendment in April, and to aim for a formal vote in May.

No formal ordinances were adopted at the Feb. 19 meeting. Staff emphasized that any ordinance change to the city's floodplain management chapter will require FDEM review and, ultimately, FEMA consideration if CRS scoring or NFIP compliance is affected.

Context and constraints

Staff repeatedly noted two constraints: (1) statutory and code limits — building code requirements (Florida Building Code) and FEMA/NFIP compliance set legal floors staff cannot undercut; and (2) administrative cost and CRS tradeoffs — some CRS activities require ongoing staff time or expense (public outreach mailings, watershed planning, mapping updates). Ray Deshler said FEMA is revising CRS and that the program’s scoring and prerequisites could change; staff recommended weighing near‑term gains against forthcoming CRS revisions.

What to expect

Staff asked for community participation at the March workshop and committed to producing visuals and example profiles (e.g., acceptable lot‑grading sections, limits on perimeter retaining walls, and preferred foundation types) so homeowners and builders can better anticipate outcomes. Amy Skinner framed the immediate goal as producing clearer standards the board can apply to current applications while longer‑term shoreline and Corps studies continue.

Ending

The board set a timeline for follow‑up outreach and ordinance drafting, and staff said they will circulate materials and seek contractor, builder and resident input before the April draft and the planned May vote. "We need better guidelines," a board member said; staff responded they will pursue a combination of administrative standards and a public hearing path so the city can respond more consistently to applications and to neighborhood concerns.