Venice Historic and Architectural Preservation Board - April 9, 2026

The Historic and Architectural Preservation Board (HAPB) met on April 9, 2026, in the City of Venice Council Chambers (scheduled for 9:00 AM per the agenda). All seven board members were present. The board approved the March 12, 2026 minutes, heard the annual presentation from Mayor Pachota and the city charter officers, approved a rear addition at 417 Nassau Street with conditions, and denied a concurrent color-coverage design alternative on a 3-3 tie vote. Chair BB abstained from both 417 Nassau Street petitions after declaring a conflict of interest. No members of the public offered testimony during the meeting.

Consent Calendar

• The minutes of the March 12, 2026 meeting were approved unanimously by voice vote, with no corrections offered.
• No members of the public signed up for general audience participation.

Annual Presentation by Mayor Pachota and Charter Officers

• Mayor Pachota (spelled Pachota on the agenda; rendered as Pichota in the transcript) appeared with City Manager James Clinch, City Clerk Michaels, and the city attorney's office. The agenda lists City Attorney Fernandez; in the transcript, the presentation attorney says they are filling in for Kelly, and Attorney Lewis conducts the quasi-judicial hearings.
• The mayor described the legislative referral process used to formalize communication between the board and council, reminded the board that it is subordinate to the council, and asked members to help recruit volunteers for city boards, noting three open positions and a decline in volunteer numbers.
• City Clerk Michaels said quorum is required to act, virtual attendance is currently authorized only for council and the planning commission (not HAPB), and the chair must be present in person to conduct a meeting.
• The city attorney reviewed the differences between quasi-judicial and legislative hearings, the requirements of due process and competent substantial evidence, the handling of ex parte communications and conflicts of interest, and the importance of clear, properly worded motions; a denied application requires a written order stating specific reasons for appeal purposes.
• City Manager Clinch thanked the board, called HAPB the trailblazers of the city's board mergers, and said boards are functioning the best they ever have. He identified Harry Klinkhammer (Historical Resources) and Roger Clark (Planning and Zoning) as the board's staff liaisons and asked that requests be made through proper channels rather than as direct staff assignments.
• Each board has a council member liaison; HAPB's liaison is Mr. Inglekey, who represents the full council rather than his personal views.
• A board member raised the board's frequent contact with code enforcement issues on Venice Avenue and asked for better coordination; the city manager was receptive to discussing ways to support the board.
• Board member John volunteered to represent HAPB at the upcoming local register forum, and the board reached consensus on that selection.

Public Hearing: 417 Nassau Street - Rear Addition (PLAR26-0005)

• Staff: Brittany Smith, Planner, with Harry Klinkhammer, Historical Resources Manager; agent Sam Hardie, AIA, of Beebe Design Studio; owners Samuel and Anna Mclean Joynson. The hearing was certified as properly advertised on March 21, 2026.
• Chair BB declared a conflict of interest because the presenting architect is his son-in-law and his firm is involved; he abstained and Vice Chair Trammell presided. The board confirmed no other conflicts and no ex parte communications.
• The application sought a certificate of architectural compliance to remove a non-original rear addition and build a new two-story rear addition on the 1926 house, along with window, door, roof, stucco repair, and painting work. A separate design alternative for fence height arrived after the legal notice deadline and will be heard at the next HAPB meeting; the wall was not decided at this meeting.
• Klinkhammer reviewed the project under the Secretary of the Interior's standards, noting that the addition will be taller than the original, was off-centered to differentiate new from old, will use non-original replacement windows, and can be removed without damaging the original except for two windows being converted to doorways.
• Board members raised multiple design conditions: match replacement window openings to the 1926 originals, replicate the original circular roof vent, provide a detail for the railing under the front window, show the folded tile edge on the gable, clarify the gate material, add notes for the garden wall cap and chimney, detail the exposed roof tails and brackets, and identify the pool deck material. Historic awnings were suggested but not required.
• Agent Hardie asked for the item to be approved with supplemental drawings rather than continued. Roger Clark confirmed that staff could verify the requested details and would consult Vice Chair Trammell if questions arose. The board agreed.
• Vote: 6-0 approval, Chair BB abstaining. Approval is conditioned on the applicant providing the drawing details and stipulations discussed at the hearing and staff verifying that they are addressed.

Public Hearing: 417 Nassau Street - Color Coverage Design Alternative (PLAR26-0010)

• The concurrent petition requested a design alternative to allow the primary paint color to exceed the code's 75 percent coverage limit for one color (the code allows up to 75 percent primary, 20 percent secondary, and 5 percent accent color). The hearing was certified as properly advertised on March 21, 2026.
• Chair BB again abstained due to the same conflict; the board confirmed no other conflicts and no ex parte communications.
• Agent Hardie said the 1926 house is a simple, predominantly one-color building without trim or banding, so forcing accent zones would be artificial; he stated that the owner preferred a single low-maintenance color from the approved palette.
• Several board members suggested using accent colors on the chimney, the second-floor shower bay, the garden wall, and the rear porch recesses, and noted that the applicant's firm had used color well on past projects. A motion to approve was made and seconded, but board discussion raised the option to deny because the project had real opportunities to use the required percentages.
• The motion failed on a 3-3 tie, with Chair BB abstaining. The chair declared the motion not approved, so the design alternative is denied.
• Attorney Lewis explained that because the motion was not approved, the denial must be reduced to an order stating reasons; the stated basis is that the primary color would exceed the 75 percent code limit. The applicant may revise the color scheme to meet the code's percentages, and staff can approve a compliant palette administratively, or the applicant may return with a new design alternative.
• After the vote, Chair BB said Chapter 87, Section 10.4.8.2 (referred to by the chair as '710.4') is unclear and should be revisited. Roger Clark noted that the city is updating its color palette with a design professional and that any code change must be reviewed to ensure it is not more burdensome under Senate Bill 180.

Board Discussion and Staff Comments

• Florida historic resources grants: the Edgewood and Seaboard survey remains on schedule, with results to be presented at the June HAPB meeting; the next survey will cover the Venetia Park neighborhood. The state grant application process, normally opening April 1, has not opened, with no explanation provided.
• The Beach Pavilion has been added to the local register after the board's recommendation and council approval. A low-key plaque unveiling is planned for late May during Historic Preservation Month. Public Works has a roof replacement capital project and may seek a state historic preservation grant for fiscal year 2027; the original architectural drawings are being digitized this week.
• A board member suggested inviting the Venice Historical Society and other VHP groups to the Beach Pavilion ceremony.

Key Outcomes

• Approved the March 12, 2026 minutes unanimously.
• Approved PLAR26-0005 (417 Nassau Street rear addition) 6-0, Chair BB abstaining, with conditions to be verified by staff.
• Denied PLAR26-0010 (color coverage design alternative) on a 3-3 tie, Chair BB abstaining; the applicant may comply with the color percentage code administratively or return with a new alternative.
• Deferred the fence-height design alternative for 417 Nassau Street to the next HAPB meeting.
• Selected Board member John to represent HAPB at the local register forum (consensus).
• A board member volunteered to accept the Preservation Month proclamation at the April 28 city council meeting.
• Discussed revisiting the color coverage standard and updating the city's color palette, subject to Senate Bill 180 constraints; no formal code change was made.