Historical Review Board Meeting (2026-03-25)

AGENDA HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD MEETING March 25, 2026 AT 6:00 PM 116 FIRST STREET NEPTUNE BEACH, FL 32266 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Approval of January 28, 2026 Minutes 5. HS26-02 Application for Determination of Historical Significance as outlined in Chapter 2 Section 497 of the General Code of Neptune Beach for John Campbell and Barbara Williamson for the property currently known as 1412 Strand Street (RE# 172995-0000) 6. Open Discussion 7. Adjourn City of Neptune Beach Community Development Department 116 First Street • Neptune Beach, Florida 32266-6140 (904) 270-2400 CDD@NBFL.US

MINUTES HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD January 28, 2026 6:00PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 116 FIRST STRE NEPTUNE BEACH, FLORIDA 32266 Pursuant to proper notice a public hearing of the Historical Preservation Board for the City of Neptune Beach was held in person on Wednesday January 28, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Attendance Board Members in attendance Alision Ronzon Julie Swartsenburger Ginny Thurson Timothy Townsend Monty Keirnan The following staff members were present: Heather Whitmore, Community Development Director Paul Waters, City Attorney Catherine Ponsen, City Clerk Dallas Alvarez, Administrative Assistant Call to Order Heather Whitmore called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. & Roll Call Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 5 – Alision Ronzon, Julie Swartenburger, Ginny Thurson, Timothy Townsend, Monty Keirnan Noes: 0 MOTION CARRIED

Pledge Pledge of Allegiance Swearing In Catherine Ponsen asked all board members to swear in and administered the oath. Chair Appointment MOTION: TO APPOINT ALSION RONZON AS HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD CHAIR PERSON HS26-01 Made by Monty Kiernan, seconded by Julie Swartsenburger Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 5 – Alision Ronzon, Julie Swartenburger, Ginny Thurson, Timothy Townsend, Monty Keirnan Noes: 0 MOTION CARRIED HS26-01: Application for Determination of Historical Significance as outlined in Chapter 2 Section 497 of the General Code of Neptune Beach for Kathleen Mills for the property currently known as 228 Florida Blvd (RE#173169-0000). BACKGROUND: Application for Determination of Historical Significance as outlined in Chapter 2 Section 497 of the General Code of Neptune Beach for Kathleen Mills for the property currently known as 228 Florida Blvd (RE# 173169-0000). The property is in the R-4/RC Overlay zoning district. DISCUSSION: The applicant requests a Determination of Historical Significance for the subject property. The home is located on the northern side of the 200 block of Florida. The 4,366 square foot lot contains a two story duplex built in 1937. The existing interior square footage is approximately 1,503 square feet. The existing house is setback approximately (66) feet from the front property line along Florida, (2.5) feet on the eastern side property line, (2.3) feet on the western side property line and (7.5) feet on the northern rear property line. The existing lot coverage is 21.8% and the Floor Area Ratio is 34%.

The R-4/RC Overlay Building and Lot Requirements are outline in LDC Table 27-239 as attached, and are as follows: R-4/RC Overlay 228 Florida Blvd (Existing) Front Yard Setback 10 feet 66 feet Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 7.5 feet Side Yard (Internal) 7 feet (2.5) feet eastern side (2.3) feet western side Side Yard (Street) 8 feet NA Lot Coverage (Max) 50% 21.8% Floor Area Ratio (Max) 65% 34%

Figure 2: 228 Florida Blvd frontage view

III. FINDINGS: The Historical Review Board may make a Determination of Historical Significance for properties that are at least fifty (50) years old and retain the physical characteristics for the time the structure was built. The fifty (50) year old requirement may be waived if the property is determined to be a Florida Heritage Site as determined by the Florida Department of State’s Historical Division of Historical Resources. In addition, the Historical Review Board shall find at least one of the following criteria for the historical designation: 1. Have the Florida Heritage Landmark status as determined by the Florida Department of State’s Historical Division of Historical Resources by being on the Division’s Florida Register of Heritage Landmarks; a. Applicant Response: No 2. Be listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the United States Department of the Interior’s Nation Parks Service, Office of Cultural Resources; a. Applicant Response: No 3. Have an association with a significant historical event that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; a. Applicant Response: No 4. Have regional significance in areas like architecture, having retained those physical characteristics that were present during the period which the structure was built and that are unique to the City of Neptune Beach. Examples include but are not limited to the two-story homes located along First Street with sleeping porches or the mid-century modern homes west of Third Street that were constructed in a manner to capture ocean breezes; a. Applicant Response: Yes, home was constructed in 1937 and retains architecture and physical characteristics of the time period of construction. 5. Have an association with the lives of people significant in our past. A non-exhaustive list of examples of significant people in our past includes those that contributed to an important historical event, or who were noted artists, actors, authors, performers, musicians, soldiers, professional athletes, politicians, scholars, religious figures, social activists or newsworthy persons; a. Applicant Response: Property has been with current family/owners since 1974

6. Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or design and represent the work of a master or notable or renowned architect or builder, or possessing high artistic values; or a. Applicant Response: The subject property represents the 2-story carriage style construction of Neptune Beach in the 1930s. 7. Have the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history. a. Applicant Response: Unknown, but potentially yes for retaining 89 year old structure demonstrating architecture consistent with time period of construction. IV. EXHIBITS: a. Application For Determination Of Historical Significance b. 228 Florida Blvd Survey c. 228 Florida Blvd Deed d. 228 Florida Blvd Photos e. Neptune Beach Table 27-239 Building and Lot Requirements by Zoning f. 228 Florida Blvd Existing/ Proposed Site Plan g. 228 Florida Blvd Existing/ Proposed Floor Plan h. 228 Florida Blvd Existing/ Proposed Elevations Plan Set

OPEN DISCUSSION BOARD DISCUSSION Ian Brown introduced himself and gave a little bit of background on the home and applicants for HS26-01 while presenting a PowerPoint presentation. Elizabeth Betsy Birdsong (707 Cedar Ct) thanked the board for this opportunity to apply for the historical significance designation. She went on to say that when given the option to tear down and rebuild verses save the home that they wanted to save the home and shared her reasons. Lorilee Lie (2023 Shadow Lane) told of her experience working with the same builder that would be renovating 228 Florida. She said that she highly recommends the builder and they did everything to retain the old home traits on her personal home. John Birdsong (707 Cedar Ct) stated that he was looking forward to living in the home and wants to maintain as much as the original characteristics as possible. Kathleen Mills who owns the home at 228 Florida Blvd. explained the sentimental significance of the home and that it was the first home she and her husband bought together. Monty Kiernan commented about the remarks of the family and home significance. Timothy Townsend believed that the home has historical significance. Julie Swartsenburger stated that she didn’t care for the siding but that the setback is characteristic of the 1930’s carriage home and is interested to see what this property will look like visually. Ginny Thurson said that she walks past the home every day and believes this home is a perfect candidate for a determination of historical significance. Alision Ronzon reiterated that the home is well over 50 years old and retains the same physical characteristics as when it was originally built. She acknowledged the tongue and groove parts of the house, floors, windows, garage doors, upstairs original doors and lot set back. She expressed how excited she is that the homeowners decided to keep the original structure. MOTION: TO APPROVE HS26-01 Made by Monty Kiernan, seconded by Julie Swartsenburger Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 5 – Alision Ronzon, Julie Swartenburger, Ginny Thurson, Timothy Townsend, Monty Keirnan Noes: 0

MOTION CARRIED COA26-01 COA26-01: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness as outlined in Chapter 2 Section 497 of the General Code of Neptune Beach for Kathleen Mills for a building addition to the property currently known as 228 Florida Blvd (RE# 173169-0000). BACKGROUND: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness as outlined in Chapter 2 Section 497 of the General Code of Neptune Beach for Kathleen Mills for a building addition to the property currently known as 228 Florida Blvd (RE# 173169-0000).The property is in the R-4/RC Overlay zoning district. DISCUSSION: The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to the subject property. The home is located on the northern side of the 200 block of Florida. The 4,366 square foot lot contains a two story duplex built in 1937. The existing interior square footage is approximately 1,503 square feet. The existing house is setback approximately 66 feet from the front property line along Florida, 2.5 feet on the eastern side property line, 2.3 feet on the western side property line and 7.5 feet on the northern rear property line. The existing lot coverage is 21.8% and the Floor Area Ratio is 34%. The proposed improvements include the following: - +/- 400 square foot two story interior renovation with 101 square foot addition in northern rear yard - Replace front porch - Replace doors/exterior siding - Two story deck and stairs in southern front yard Two story deck and stairs in eastern side yard - Replace existing driveway with pervious pavers -

The new interior square footage will be approximately 1,600 square feet. The proposed condition setback will be approximately (66) feet from the front property line along Florida, (2) feet on the eastern side property line, (2.3) feet on the western side property line and (7.5) feet on the northern rear property line. The existing lot coverage is 21.8% and the Floor Area Ratio is 34%. The R-4/RC Overlay Building and Lot Requirements are outline in LDC Table 27-239 as attached, and are as follows: R-4/RC Overlay 228 Florida Blvd (Existing) 228 Florida Blvd (Proposed) Front Yard Setback 10 feet 66 feet 66 feet Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 7.5 feet 6.5 feet Side Yard (Internal) 7 feet (2.5) feet eastern side (2.3) feet western side (2) feet eastern side (2.3) feet western side Side Yard (Street) 8 feet NA NA Lot Coverage (Max) 50% 21.8% 33% Floor Area Ratio (Max) 65% 34% 36% The applicant describes the proposed exterior material as follows: Lower Level / Ground-Contact Walls Primary Intent: - Painted brick to provide a visually grounded base - Soft white, cream, or light paint finish - Simple masonry application Upper Level Walls Primary Intent: - Wood or wood look composite Shake or shingle-style siding, or equivalent - Modest exposure and tight scale - A combination of shingle and lap siding may be used across elevations as needed Material Transitions and Detailing Simple horizontal trim is proposed between lower- and upper-level materials to clearly articulate the transition and avoid contemporary detailing. Trim profiles and detailing are intended to remain restrained and modest.

Figure 1: 228 Florida Blvd aerial view

Figure 2: 228 Florida Blvd frontage view

III. GENERAL CRITERIA FINDINGS: In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations, new construction, demolition, or relocation, the Historic Preservation Board shall be guided by the following general criteria: 1. The effect of the proposed work on the historically significant property upon which such work is to be done; a. Applicant Response: The work proposed is to bring many features up to current code and safety requirements, while improving the interior configuration and preserving the architectural style of the 89 year old dwelling. 2. The extent to which the historic, architectural, or archaeological significance, architectural style, design, arrangement, texture and materials of the landmark or the property will be affected. a. Applicant Response: The property has deferred maintenance and is in need of renovation; however, the design and architectural style will remain post- renovation, to honor the 1930s time period of construction. 3. Whether the plans may be carried out by the applicant within a reasonable period of time. a. Applicant Response: Yes, the applicant intends to apply for permitting as soon as approvals are in place. They are eager to renovate and reside in this home that has been in their family over 50 years (since 1974).

IV. UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FINDINGS: Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for alterations shall be considered by the Historic Review Board in accordance with the following additional criteria, which are based on the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to use a property for its originally intended purpose, or to provide a compatible use for a property that requires minimal alteration of the building structure, or site. a. Applicant Response: Owners will be using home for the original intended purpose and use, which is a residential use. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features shall be avoided when possible. a. Applicant Response: Owners will avoid, whenever possible, the removal or alternation of any historic material or distinctive architectural features and the original quality or character of the building shall not be destroyed. 3. Each building, structure, and site shall be recognized as a product of its own time. An alteration which has no historical basis and which seeks to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. a. Applicant Response: Owners understand the subject property is a product of its own time, specifically the 1930s, and alterations will have consistency and continuity in appearance to that time period. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. a. Applicant Response: Owners understand and acknowledge the statement above and have made best-effort to recognize and respect the significance of the history, along with any changes, over the past 89 year property history. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site, shall be treated with sensitivity. a. Applicant Response: Owners intend to honor the distinctive style and features of the 1937 construction and treat stylistic features and elements of skilled craftsmanship with sensitivity.

6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. However, technologically advanced materials shall be considered and used as replacement alternatives. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features shall be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. a. Applicant Response: Owners will give special consideration to architectural features when renovating this property. Additionally, efforts will be made to match design, color, texture, and visual qualities. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall be not undertaken. a. Applicant Response: Owners to use gentle means if cleaning any historic building materials. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction project. a. Applicant Response: To applicant’s actual knowledge, there are no known archaeological resources; however, should they be discovered every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve those resources.

V. REQUIRED BOARD MOTION FINDINGS OF FACT: The historic review board shall not recommend approval of, any certificate of appropriateness unless it makes a positive finding, based on substantial competent evidence presented at the public hearing, on each of the following criteria: 1. The property has unique and peculiar historic significance, which create exceptional and unique building characteristics. 2. The proposed certificate of appropriateness would not adversely affect adjacent and nearby properties or the public in general. 3. The proposed certificate of appropriateness will not substantially diminish property values in, nor alter the essential character of, the area surrounding the site. 4. The effect of the proposed certificate of appropriateness is in harmony with the general intent of the ULDC and the specific intent of the relevant subject area(s) of the ULDC. VI. EXHIBITS: Ex A) Application For Determination Of Historical Significance Ex B) 228 Florida Blvd Survey Ex C) 228 Florida Blvd Deed Ex D) 228 Florida Blvd Photos Ex E) Neptune Beach Table 27-239 Building and Lot Requirements by Zoning Ex F) 228 Florida Blvd Existing/ Proposed Site Plan Ex G) 228 Florida Blvd Existing/ Proposed Floor Plan Ex H) 228 Florida Blvd Existing/ Proposed Elevations Plan Set Ex I) Exterior Materials Ex J) Interior Scope

Heather Whitmore explained to the board that when making a motion to make sure that it is specific and to condition it appropriately. Ian Brown thanked the board for the historic designation and continued to navigate the audience through his power point presentation. He stated that some of the goals are to figure out a way to enter the second floor through the inside of the home rather than through the current outside steps. He also referenced the bump out first floor bathroom, lot coverage, materials, elevation, decking, floors, porch, entry doors, siding and windows to be replaced. Ginny Thurson asked about the first-floor kitchen in the home. Elizabeth Birdsong answered that it would be more of a kitchenette and that the cabinets and sink would be replaced. Heather Whitmore explained that her scope of work is on the exterior of the home when it comes to what she can enforce and that applicants aren’t supposed to deviate from their plans on the outside of the home. Alision Ronzon asked what kind of materials will be used on the outside of the home and stated that their decisions are setting a presentence and doesn’t want to allow cart blanch to do whatever. Ian Brown explained the Exterior Material Matrix that was presented in his power point showing the Primary Proposed Material, Acceptable Alternatives and the Historic Compatibility Rationale. He told the board that painted brick would be the ideal product for the first floor and composite shake or wood shingle siding for the second floor. Then he went on the tell that no one had pulled off the siding and it wasn’t determined yet which product was going to be used. Allision Ronson asked more questions about the materials being used on the outside of the home. Would it be real or fake brick? She asked if all the bottom floor would be brick or maintain some of the original lower siding. She also asked about the front door and where the ideas are coming from. Elizabeth Birdsong responded that they had only started looking at windows and doors and that she would like double doors with natural light but hadn’t settled on anything yet and they are flexible. Alison Ronson said that she was hesitant on granting due to unknown materials on siding and doors because this decision is setting a precedence. Elizabeth Birdsong responded that their materials that would be used depended on the cost and budget. She also talked about adding a round or oval window to the front of the house to maintain historical style. Monty Keirnan asked about the timetable they are working with and budget if they received approval.

Elisabeth Birdsong responded that both units are rented. The upstairs tenants are moving out in the first week of February and downstairs tenants would be moving out in April. She said their hopes were to start construction on May 1st and the job would last 6-9 months if there weren’t any unforeseen problems. Elizabeth Birdsong answered that they had a set budget but some flexibility. Paul Zebouni (Blue Wave Builders, Inc) was sworn in. Paul Zebouni introduced himself and gave some background on his scope of work with historical homes. He went on to explain the materials wanted but that budget does play a role. He also stated that it could happen that they run into situations where the materials would change according to budget. One example Paul used was if they run into a lot of rotten wood. He explained that it would cost more money from the budget to fix and that the homeowners may need to pick products that are more affordable along the way. Monty Keirnan asked when Blue Wave will have a sense of the underlying issues on the structure so that decisions can be made for what types of materials will be used. If demolition is the first phase, then what is the timeline? Paul Zebouni said he could order the front door as early as demo. He also said the owners have expressed deep concern for keeping with the original structure, but no exact selections have been made Monty Keirnan restated his question. Once permits are approved, would it be 30 days? Paul Zebouni replied that 30 days is a good estimate. The homeowners expressed to him that they like the wood cedar siding. He said they may have to go with the composite materials but they can be painted to look like the original. Julie Swartsenburger asked more about the materials and if there are available samples. She also asked if conditional approval would be an option for the board? Ginney Thorson also agreed with the conditional approval suggestion since this is the first committee meeting. Alison Ronzon gave examples of renovations she has done. She stated that there are gray areas and if the materials used aren’t what is in plan that would make the house look like a brand new house. Heather Whitmore told the board that there isn’t a prescriptive materials list and told the board to be cautious of giving a conditional approval. She went on to explain how Riverside and Springfield have prescriptive

Laura Lie asked if there is anything Ian didn’t provide with the materials matrix. Something specific that didn’t provide clarity? Don’t want to open flood gates but also be able to move as efficiently as possible within consistent framework. Allsion answered that they are walking a fine line and explained that the purpose of the board is not to give someone a prescription on what they must do with their homes. She gave an example of a local house that has the stuck-on brick and noted that it doesn’t look like real brick on a home from a historical era. Allision continued in her response to Ms. Lie that this board took two years to put together and the city council has the authority to sunset it. She furthered explained that the city council has 30 days to overrule any decision that is made by the historical board. She just wants to be sure that whatever materials are chosen for the restoration looks like they would have been from the same timeframe when the home was built in order to keep historical character of the home. Heather Whitmore provided some help with explaining what information is binding and her scope of authority in the approval process. She gave an example to the board about materials and how to ask for more specific information so that it would be better articulated when applying for permit approval. Monty Keirnan followed up by saying that pictures are better words and says the work seen this far has been well thought out and very thorough. Heather Whitmore responded that the board could ask for more specifics on materials to be used. That deferring to the next meeting is an option and will allow the applicant due process to get the information requested. Allision said she’s hung up on the brick and what to approve if the applicant doesn’t know what materials they are using. Ian Brown asked the board if they could work through the exterior materials matrix at that time because of the month-long stretches between board meetings and possible schedule conflicts. He went on to say that there would be challenges if they were to try and bring in physical samples. Ginny Thorson said her only concern was the painted brick. Allison Rozon agreed that the painted brick was a concern as well as the aluminum railing. Ian Brown went over the siding materials and asked again if they could work through the matrix and condition or narrow down the materials to make a decision. Timothey Townsend inserted that painted brick is painted brick not painted veneer or the glued-on material.

Paul Zebouni reported to the board they were meaning actual brick and not a pho brick or tile product when discussing project materials. He went on to say that he would be happy to add that verbiage if needed to clear up any confusion. Julie Swatsenburger asked about the shake shingles and told of her concern about high- and low-end materials being mixed in. Not feeling like the time period Paul Zebouni answered that ideally it would be the actual wood shake but if budget prohibited it they would go with premium Sierra shake with mitered outside corners. Julie Swartzenbureger asked that the shingle materials are specified in the conditions of approval and is good with the windows and doors. Monty Keirnan requested more detail on the door. Paul Zebouni replied that he can add verbiage to not pick out a crazy, modern all metal door and believes any real wood door wood work. Julie Swatzenburger said she is good with wood and using or replicating the garage door. Allison Ronzon brought up the aluminum railing again. Ian Brown asked the family in the audience to eighty-six the aluminum and use wood and they agreed. Alison Ronzon shared her appreciation of everyone’s thoughtfulness and keeping with the historical character. She stated that she wants to get this right and set a good precedence. She said this a great first house to come before the board. John Birdsong told the board that they don’t want to their home to look cheap or fake and they wouldn’t allow it. Heather Whitmore explained about the board making motions and conditioned motions. She clarified that staff is willing to help with a recommended motion. Alison Ronzon then asked Ms. Whitmore for help with this first motion. Heather Whitmore detailed a thorough proposed motion for the board to apply. Monty Keirnan then responded with additional questions about materials and a moon window that had been discussed earlier by the homeowners. Heather Whitmore answered that the homeowner would be held to the current fenestration and that the moon window was not listed as part of this application. If they want to come back and add it later then they will need to amend the fenestration that has been presented.

Heather restated the motion to approve as presented COA2601 with the primary proposed materials as presented. Condition on the following three revisions. 1. Lower-level wall material must be solid brick. 2. Upper-level wall material may be wood, Sierra shake, similar material or lap siding. 3. Stairs and railing must be painted wood construction and aluminum railing is prohibited. Ian Brown asked if the board would entertain one more condition. He went on to request to narrow the rounded oval window to being in the singular location above the proposed entry door as the fourth condition. Heather Whitmore said that she wasn’t sure if they could present that without an alternative fenestration to have on the record. Alison Ronzon agreed that she would feel more comfortable if Heather Whitmore had the fenestration in front of her with the window addition. Heather Whitmore cautioned against the fourth condition unless the board feels comfortable adding it. Julie Swartsenburger asked Ian Brown to draw the moon window on the proposed plans. Heather Whitmore spoke on the fact that it’s not common to have hand drawn conditions in a quasijudicial hearing because it can make it difficult to administer. Alison Ronzon explained that to her it was an architectural feature added in and not a material issue. Heather Whitmore advised if offering an alternative option then be specific. Heather Whitmore took a marked-up drawing that had been made in that moment by Ian Brown and approved by Paul Zebouni to the board for approval of the round window. Alison Ronson asked the board about their thoughts on adding in the window as a condition. Julie said she would be okay with it if the architect makes sure that the window is the proper size and on a specific scale. Heather Whitmore gave the fourth condition for the motion. -Flexible allowance for circular rather than rectilinear middle window on second floor. Certificate of Appropriateness as presented approved with conditions Motion Approved 5-0 -Conditions 1) First floor exterior must be real brick 2) Second floor exterior must be real wood similar Siera wood style mitered corner composition material

3) Painted wood construction required for railings, aluminum prohibited 4) Flexible allowance for optional circular second floor front center window Motion: AS STATED MOTION TO APPROVE COA26-01 Made by Timothy Townsend , seconded by Ginnie Thurson Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 5 – Alision Ronzon, Julie Swartenburger, Ginny Thurson, Timothy Townsend, Monty Keirnan Noes: 0 MOTION CARRIED Open Discussion Ginnie Thorson acknowledged that more specifics were brought up about things that the board needs to think about going forward. Julie Swatrzenburger said that moving forward inspiration photos could be helpful. Monty Keirnan complemented the team for putting everything together and said he felt as though they had a good initial template regarding the approach with some minor modifications they should make collectively in the future. He went on to ask Ms. Whitmore what would be helpful in the future. Heather Whitmore reminded the board that the way they had prepared the body in a way not to mandate. She told the board that the application asks for an exterior materials description and it’s fair to put the burden on the applicant to provide as much detail as they are comfortable with because they will be bound to it. Ms. Whitmore told the board that they can add more verbiage to the ordinance like “including” and “specifically” that some of the other Jacksonville areas have done. Monty Keirnan asked Ms. Whitmore how they can make things for the easier and expedite the process for applicants. He told of his personal application review process and how he made his decision. Heather Whitmore answered that as they mature as a board that they will have a better understanding of what they want and a large part of the role of staff is to advise and to provide as much detail without delay. Alison Ronson agreed that more specifics are a good idea going forward and will help push along applicant process. She then to thanked the applicants for putting the time into this presentation and having a positive effect on the street and community Julie Swartsenburger said she’d like to add a request for roofing materials along with the exterior materials list on the applications. She also suggested that Heather Whitmore ask the applicant to bring in thumb drives and material

samples and inspiration photo. Heather cautioned that this may be burdensome for the applicant and move away from the purpose and intent. She went on to say that she could add specific language to the application to include the materials being used for the roof, windows, doors and exterior treatment. Meeting adjourned by Alision Ronzon @ 8:19

HS26-02: 1412 Strand Street March 25, 2026 Historic Review Board Staff Report 1 of 5 CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH – HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: March 25, 2026 BOARD/COMMITTEE: Historic Review Board APPLICATION NUMBER: HS26-02 ___________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Historic Review Board FROM: Heather Whitmore, AICP, PTP Community Development Director DATE: March 21, 2026 SUBJECT: Determination of Historical Significance: 1412 Strand Street (RE# 172995-0000) ___________________________________________________________________________________ I. BACKGROUND: Application for Determination of Historical Significance as outlined in Chapter 2 Section 497 of the General Code of Neptune Beach for John Campbell and Barbara Williamson for the property currently known as 1412 Strand Street (RE# 172995- 0000). The property is in the R-4/RC Overlay zoning district. II. DISCUSSION: The applicant requests a Determination of Historical Significance for the subject property. The home is located on the west side of the 1400 block of Oceanfront/Strand Street, between South and Bowles Street. The 3,360 square foot lot contains a two story triplex built in 1935. The existing interior square footage is approximately 2,600 square feet. The existing house is setback approximately (5.5) feet from the front yard property line along Strand, (2.9) feet on the western rear yard property line, (25) feet on the northern side yard property line and (0) feet on the southern side yard property line. The existing lot coverage is 80% and the Floor Area Ratio is 77%. The entire property is located east of DEP Coastal Construction Control line.

HS26-02: 1412 Strand Street March 25, 2026 Historic Review Board Staff Report 2 of 5 The R-4/RC Overlay Building and Lot Requirements are outlined in LDC Table 27- 239 as attached, and are as follows: R-4/RC Overlay 1412 Strand (Existing) Front Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 2.9 feet Side Yard (Internal) 7 feet (25) feet northern side (0) feet southern side Side Yard (Street) 8 feet NA Lot Coverage (Max) 50% 80% Floor Area Ratio (Max) 65% 77% Figure 1: 1412 Strand St aerial view

HS26-02: 1412 Strand Street March 25, 2026 Historic Review Board Staff Report 3 of 5 Figure 2: 1412 Strand St frontage view

HS26-02: 1412 Strand Street March 25, 2026 Historic Review Board Staff Report 4 of 5 III. FINDINGS: The Historical Review Board may make a Determination of Historical Significance for properties that are at least fifty (50) years old and retain the physical characteristics for the time the structure was built. The fifty (50) year old requirement may be waived if the property is determined to be a Florida Heritage Site as determined by the Florida Department of State’s Historical Division of Historical Resources. In addition, the Historical Review Board shall find at least one of the following criteria for the historical designation: 1. Have the Florida Heritage Landmark status as determined by the Florida Department of State’s Historical Division of Historical Resources by being on the Division’s Florida Register of Heritage Landmarks; a. Applicant Response: No 2. Be listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the United States Department of the Interior’s Nation Parks Service, Office of Cultural Resources; a. Applicant Response: No 3. Have an association with a significant historical event that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; a. Applicant Response: This house was built in 1935, only 4 years after the founding of Neptune Beach. The house has views of the Atlantic Ocean and is representative of the early 20th century beachside development of Neptune Beach, Florida. 4. Have regional significance in areas like architecture, having retained those physical characteristics that were present during the period which the structure was built and that are unique to the City of Neptune Beach. Examples include but are not limited to the two-story homes located along First Street with sleeping porches or the mid-century modern homes west of Third Street that were constructed in a manner to capture ocean breezes; a. Applicant Response: This quintessential framed 2-story vernacular style house is located on Strand Street approximately 100 yards from the Atlantic Ocean and is representative of houses build in Neptune Beach in the 1930's. The exterior cedar shake shingles, and open overhanging eaves reflect the nature of this period. The lap-style heart of pine wood used on the interior ceilings and walls further define this historical period of home construction. There is also a vintage sleeping porch located on the upper level.

HS26-02: 1412 Strand Street March 25, 2026 Historic Review Board Staff Report 5 of 5 5. Have an association with the lives of people significant in our past. A non-exhaustive list of examples of significant people in our past includes those that contributed to an important historical event, or who were noted artists, actors, authors, performers, musicians, soldiers, professional athletes, politicians, scholars, religious figures, social activists or newsworthy persons; a. Applicant Response: In the 1940's Lieutenant Wistar and Ann Goodhue lived in the lower level of the house. "Wis" was a Navy pilot during World War 2 and the Korean War. The couple was married for 66 years. Ann excelled as an equestrian and having dealt with profound deafness as a child she founded the Atlanta Speech School. The upper level was occupied by Orton & Gertrude Dale, Jr. Orton also served in the U.S. Navy. Gertrude served in the Royal Air Force during World War I and had moved to New York in 1926. 6. Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or design and represent the work of a master or notable or renowned architect or builder, or possessing high artistic values; or a. Applicant Response: Both the house design and building materials reflect a locally built vernacular style beach house of the 1930's. The house has significant historical value contributing to the history of the Neptune Beach community 7. Have the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history. a. Applicant Response: Further research may possibly yield more information about the history of the house and the land it is situated upon. Additional data about the occupants who lived in the residence during the post-war period may also come to light. IV. EXHIBITS: a. Application For Determination Of Historical Significance b. 1412 Strand Street Blvd Survey c. 1412 Strand Street Photos d. Neptune Beach Table 27-239 Building and Lot Requirements by Zoning