Ocala Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting - July 2, 2026
Ocala Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting – July 2, 2026
The Ocala Historic Preservation Advisory Board met on July 2, 2026, at 4:00 PM in Ocala City Hall to review three Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs) for historic district properties. The board voted to approve one COA, disapprove another, and approve a third with conditions, and also welcomed a new board member.
Certificates of Appropriateness
COA 26-0007 – 726 SE Third Street
- Proposal: Construct a new two-story garage addition in the rear yard, with recommended setback reductions (side from 8 ft to 5 ft, rear from 25 ft to 3 ft – an 88% reduction). The slab had been previously poured under an expired permit. No applicant or representative was present.
- Discussion: Staff noted the addition is attached to the main structure, changing height requirements from 18 ft (accessory) to 35 ft (attached). A board member raised concerns about drainage and lot coverage; staff clarified building coverage (35% for residential) is not exceeded because the pad already exists. The board discussed that previous approvals had expired, but the applicant was continuing the same project.
- Vote: Motion to approve the COA including the requested setback variances. Approved unanimously.
COA 26-0023 – 216 SE 13th Avenue
- Proposal: Construct a one-bedroom addition and two-car garage at the rear, including re-roofing, window/door replacement, removal of eight windows on the north elevation, demolition of an existing detached garage, and a recommendation for a variance to reduce the rear setback from 25 ft to 6 ft. The property is a contributing structure to the Ocala Historic District (built 1935).
- Discussion: Staff presented compatible materials (wood windows with raised grills). A board member noted that eight existing windows would be removed and only four added, questioning how the historic character is maintained under code section 94-82G1. The board emphasized its historical strictness on window preservation. No applicant or representative was present.
- Vote: Motion to disapprove due to failure to comply with 94-82G1 regarding window preservation. Approved unanimously.
COA 26-0024 – 722 NE Second Street
- Proposal: Construct a one-bedroom, one-bath rear addition (approx. 14 ft x 21 ft 4 in), alter a rear window to a French door, and build a rear landing and steps. The property is a contributing structure to the Tuscawilla Historic District (built 1940). The applicant was not present.
- Discussion: Staff confirmed the addition is not visible from the public right-of-way and uses compatible materials. A board member asked about the CRA grant the applicant is seeking for the roof and historic preservation; staff clarified the grant requires a COA and reimburses at 60% for historic buildings up to $40,000. No public comments.
- Vote: Motion to approve with staff conditions, including that final window installation match submitted specifications (grill configuration, profile, mutton depth). Approved unanimously.
Board Comments
- The board welcomed new member Rita Masters. Existing members encouraged her to study the Secretary of the Interior standards and Ocala codes. The board praised staff for working with applicants on appropriate window specifications in advance, which saved time and reduced tabling.
- A board member extended Fourth of July wishes, noting the 250th celebration.
Key Outcomes
- COA 26-0007: Approved with variances. Applicant must proceed with building permit.
- COA 26-0023: Disapproved. Applicant may revise and resubmit a new COA addressing window preservation.
- COA 26-0024: Approved subject to staff conditions regarding window specifications.
- Next meeting scheduled for August 6, 2026, at 4:00 PM.
Meeting Transcript
I did not see and maybe I'm not seeing it on here uh a gutter system, but has drainage and runoff been submitted as well. So in terms of the drainage and runoff, that I can't speak to. They wouldn't need to get their COA before they can get into that too far into the permitting process, but I think that that would be addressed when they have to go through the permitting um to be able to build the structure. Um and in terms of what percentage coverage of percentages. Correct. Um that is something that honestly would have to get with my planning colleagues to get a better understanding of in terms of what the coverage is right now. Okay. Um again, I can refer to the previous C way that was approved, and I'm with under the assumption that they reviewed it at that point, but I can't say for certain where this lands in terms of percentage of lot the lot coverage and and where this would be once this is built. The pad is poured, so technically this would not really change the coverage in terms of like ground coverage for the lot. Um if I think if the lot or the the ground coverage or if the the foundation, there we go. Um had not already been poured. Right, the setbacks have all have already been um have been approved, but they have expired. So this would require um a reduction or recommendation for a reduction of the setbacks um from eight feet to five feet and a reduction of the required rear yard and set back from 25 feet to three feet. Which is an eighty-eight percent from which option, which is quite substantial. It definitely is. Yeah. Um and we see for some of our um our historic district properties when they're doing additions or other types of work, even fencing, that root setbacks on uh a request for rear setback or reductions are are common because so many of the lots in our historic district are quite small, so it's it's not uncommon to see a request for a reduction in setbacks. Um but I do understand that that's still a concern and something we want to be. Yeah. Um and my and I and I do keep hearing, and maybe I can't find it anywhere, or I just didn't see it, and I apologize um if somebody wants to point it out. But I know you keep saying the comparable heights. I thought it was 18 feet. Maybe I'm incorrect, and I'm sorry, I apologize because I know this was at just under a couple inches under 26 feet. So is that is it? Again, this is something I'd have to get from my planning colleagues to be specific, but my understanding is that it may have something to do with the whether they're attached versus detached, and I think that changes the requirement in terms of height, but I'll let you uh Aubrey Hale planning director. So I I can answer a couple of those questions. So the uh with regarding to the build it it goes by building coverage, not lot coverage. So um building coverage uh generally for the city of Ocala is 35 percent for residential lots. Okay. Uh when we previously reviewed it, he's this is basically coming back with that existing going over the existing concrete pad that was previously approved through a building permit. It went through some maturations where they went were gonna do some changes ultimately they um the permits expired, so they haven't come back in and do it, but they're going back in. So the but building coverage is not would not be uh an issue in that with it that regard. And then um Charlita was correct. Since they're providing that attachment to the main structure, it's any kind of attachment, it still classifies that as part of the main structure, which it has a maximum height of 35 feet. Okay, it was a standalone structure um an accessory structure, then your max height would be 18 feet. So because of the uh breeze way that's being added or the yeah, so that's what changes the the foot. Okay. Okay. And now that now makes it part of the attached structure. Okay. All right. All right. Okay. Uh as far as questions, I don't have any other questions, but anyone else have questions for staff? I do not. All right. And um is the applicant or the representative here? No. No. Okay.
openpublica.com