Atlantic Beach board asks staff to revise proposed floodplain ordinance after public concerns

The Atlantic Beach Community Development Board voted June 16 to send proposed ordinance 90-26-260 back to staff for further work after residents raised concerns about a section that would exempt some properties adjacent to the salt marsh from the city’s floodplain-storage requirement.

Amanda, a city staff member, read the ordinance title into the record and noted a typographical error in the draft’s date. She told the board the draft would amend section 24-89 (stormwater drainage and treatment requirements) and that the language reflected board discussions over several months. "What the language that's in the ordinance is the language that you have previously agreed to in ordinance format," Amanda said, and she framed the proposal as a cleanup of code conflicts related to floodplain storage in properties that connect to an 'infinite' water body such as the Intracoastal Waterway.

Several residents and property owners urged changes or more data during the public hearing. Sarah Boren asked whether combining floodplain storage with on-site stormwater storage results in a net loss of storage, recommended requiring signed-and-sealed engineering plans that include cumulative-impact and future-conditions (sea-level-rise) analysis, and asked for a clearer justification and an estimate of how many properties would be affected. "If we only base plans and engineering calculations on current conditions, we're not planning for the impact that's going to come," Boren said.

Anna Nook and a companion who identified himself as Max said streets near the Intracoastal already hold water for days and urged limiting any exemption to properties directly on the Intracoastal. Another resident, Lauren, asked why staff were proposing the change before the city’s stormwater master plan is complete and whether that timing was premature.

Board members sought technical clarification from staff about FEMA maps, AE flood zones and base flood elevations. Amanda explained that FEMA maps were used to show AE zones and that Atlantic Beach’s code typically requires elevations above the FEMA minimums as part of its Community Rating System practices; she told the board that the proposed change was intended to address a code conflict that pushed some projects into variance review despite having signed-and-sealed no-net-loss documentation.

After discussion about whether the draft needed clearer whereas clauses, justification language and limits (for example, phasing or caps on total floodplain-storage loss), Committee member (speaker 6) moved that staff revise the ordinance to address the Community Development Board’s and public commenters’ concerns; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. Staff said the ordinance will be returned to the city commission for consideration on July 13 after additional work by staff.

The board’s action does not adopt the ordinance; it directs staff to clarify definitions and add explanatory material and possible implementation options, including the kinds of engineering documentation and cumulative analyses requested by public commenters. The commission will receive the revised draft at a future meeting.