The Historic and Architectural Preservation Board approved a variance allowing Country Club Apartments (Country Club Apartments Condo Association) to replace an aging asphalt-shingle mansard with a standing-seam metal roof.

Britney Smith, a City of Venice planner, told the board the application (identified in staff comments as PLAR23-00282 and referenced during motion as P LAR24-000282) requested relief from a Venetian-theme prohibition on standing-seam metal and other ribbed metals (staff read the ordinance language and the variance criteria from the land-development code). Smith said the condominium buildings were constructed before the district's architectural overlay and are minimally visible from the street because of a perimeter wall. She noted an adjacent property (Blue Island Bistro) has standing-seam roofing that was installed after its approval for like‑for‑like replacement had been interpreted differently at the time.

Applicant Bernard Dogue, representing the Country Club Apartments Condo Association as manager for Duke Professional Management LLC, said the existing roof was beyond its useful life and had hurricane damage and that the association selected a metal system after competitive bids because the metal roof offers greater longevity. "the roof is beyond its useful life," Dogue said, summarizing the association's reasoning for selecting the metal alternative.

James Robinson, the roofing contractor, described the proposed material as clear‑coated Galvalume 5V crimp panel with the option for textured coatings to reduce sheen. Board members and staff discussed alternatives—barrel‑tile metal panels and colored/textured finishes—and noted technical constraints including the building's slope (described in the hearing as a 3:12 slope) and the relative cost and wind performance of alternatives.

Staff and the board reviewed variance criteria including the property's pre‑VHP construction, limited public visibility of the mansard, and the increased cost to comply with a like‑for‑like requirement for tile or shingle alternatives. Board members said the metal solution reduced long‑term maintenance and storm‑damage risk for the owners while making minimal visual impact. There was interest from some members to see a low‑sheen textured coating option but no such sample had been submitted with the application; the applicant supplied color chips during the hearing to demonstrate available textures.

After discussion the board moved to approve the variance. The motion passed unanimously on roll call: Weaver—yes; Trammell—yes; Barrick—yes; Steckety—yes; Terry Berry—yes; Beebe—yes. The chair noted that variances granted for a single structure should not be treated as precedent for others, per staff guidance.