Minutes
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FORT PIERCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2026, IN FORT PIERCE CITY HALL, COMMISSION CHAMBERS, 100 NORTH US HIGHWAY 1, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.
ROLL CALL
- Present:
- Charlie Hayek; Betty Jo Starke; Susan Garrett; Minnie Spivey; Anthony Westbury; KeAndrea Davis, Chair
- Absent:
- Staff Present:
-
- Felicia Holloman, Assistant City Attorney
- Shaun Coss, Code Enforcement Director
- Chris Suneson, Assistant Planning Director
- Vennis Gilmore, Historic Preservation Senior Planner
- Alicia Rosenthal, Planning and Development Organizer
4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
Minutes from the September 22, 2025 meeting
Motion was made by Betty Jo Starke, and seconded by Charlie Hayek to approve the minutes from the September 22, 2025 meeting.
- AYE:
- Betty Jo Starke, Susan Garrett, Anthony Westbury, Minnie Spivey, Charlie Hayek, Chair KeAndrea Davis
Passed
5.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.
PZCOA2026-00014
Certificate of Appropriateness
Demolition
1121 Avenue E
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2026-00014 for the demolition located at 1121 Avenue E.
The chair called the proceeding to order.
The Board Attorney explained the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures.
When acting as a quasi-judicial body, the Board is held to certain procedural requirements. Quasi-judicial proceedings are less formal than proceedings before a circuit court, but are more formal than the other aspects of today’s meeting. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of notice and due process, and decisions must be made based on competent substantial evidence. Therefore, board members have a duty to conduct quasi-judicial proceedings more like judges than legislators. This afternoon, the Board will follow the same uniform procedure in all quasi-judicial hearings.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement and notice requirements.
The chair inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Ms. Garrett - no
Ms. Spivey - no
Mr. Westbury - no
Mr. Hayek - no
Ms. Starke - no
Chair Davis - no
The chair opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Board questions for staff: Ms. Garrett asked if the full replacement structure needs to go through the Certificate of Appropriateness process, and she clarified that the demolition does not indicate approval of the replacement structure. Ms. Starke asked if the framework is termite ridden or in good shape.
Applicant Presentation: Fernandez Andre, owner, sworn, said the main goal is to build a new structure. He said the 1947 structure, including the framework, is termite-ridden. Mr. Andre stated he met with two different architects, and he was told it would be safer and beautiful to build a new structure. Mr. Andre said he would be honoring the same floor plan and almost the same square footage.
Board questions for applicant: Mr. Hayek asked if the new structure would be framed and cypress siding is being used. Mr. Andre said he would be using hardie board siding which is identical to what is on the structure proposed for demolition. Ms. Starke asked about the meaning of legal on #6 of the criteria for demolition. Mr. Andre said renovating is not a safe outcome.
Staff final comments: none
Applicant final comments: none
The Chair, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: none
Certificate of Appropriateness
Demolition
1121 Avenue E
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2026-00014 for the demolition located at 1121 Avenue E.
The chair called the proceeding to order.
The Board Attorney explained the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures.
When acting as a quasi-judicial body, the Board is held to certain procedural requirements. Quasi-judicial proceedings are less formal than proceedings before a circuit court, but are more formal than the other aspects of today’s meeting. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of notice and due process, and decisions must be made based on competent substantial evidence. Therefore, board members have a duty to conduct quasi-judicial proceedings more like judges than legislators. This afternoon, the Board will follow the same uniform procedure in all quasi-judicial hearings.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement and notice requirements.
The chair inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Ms. Garrett - no
Ms. Spivey - no
Mr. Westbury - no
Mr. Hayek - no
Ms. Starke - no
Chair Davis - no
The chair opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Staff Presentation: Mr. Gilmore said the structure is a one-story wood-frame building with a gable roof built in 1946. The applicant is requesting approval for the demolition of the termite-damaged, deteriorated structure that is in very poor condition. After the demolition, the owner intends to develop a new one-story single-family residence. While rehab of the structure is permitted and possible, it would be at considerable expense. Given that the application meets A, B, C, D, and E of the criteria for demolition of a structure within a designated historic district, staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board approve the demolition.
Board questions for staff: Ms. Garrett asked if the full replacement structure needs to go through the Certificate of Appropriateness process, and she clarified that the demolition does not indicate approval of the replacement structure. Ms. Starke asked if the framework is termite ridden or in good shape.
Applicant Presentation: Fernandez Andre, owner, sworn, said the main goal is to build a new structure. He said the 1947 structure, including the framework, is termite-ridden. Mr. Andre stated he met with two different architects, and he was told it would be safer and beautiful to build a new structure. Mr. Andre said he would be honoring the same floor plan and almost the same square footage.
Board questions for applicant: Mr. Hayek asked if the new structure would be framed and cypress siding is being used. Mr. Andre said he would be using hardie board siding which is identical to what is on the structure proposed for demolition. Ms. Starke asked about the meaning of legal on #6 of the criteria for demolition. Mr. Andre said renovating is not a safe outcome.
Staff final comments: none
Applicant final comments: none
The Chair, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: none
Motion was made by Charlie Hayek, and seconded by Anthony Westbury to approve Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2026-00014 for the demolition of the structure located at 1121 Avenue E.
- AYE:
- Susan Garrett, Minnie Spivey, Anthony Westbury, Charlie Hayek, Betty Jo Starke, Chair KeAndrea Davis
Passed
b.
PZCOA2026-00017
Certificate of Appropriateness
Duplex
1102 Avenue E
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2026-00017 for a duplex at 1102 Avenue E.
The chair called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement and notice requirements.
The chair inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Mr. Westbury - no
Ms. Spivey - no
Mr. Hayek - no
Ms. Starke - no
Ms. Garrett - no
Chair Davis - no
The chair opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Staff Presentation: Mr. Gilmore said the applicant is requesting approval for the construction of a duplex with associated driveway, parking and landscaping on a prominent site in the Lincoln Park Historic District. He said the design of the new building meets the technical aspects of the Secretary of the Interior regarding size, scale, materials and massing; however, the architectural elements do not provide a continuity of character of the surrounding historic neighborhood. Mr. Gilmore said staff recommends the Historic Preservation Board approve the request with conditions that all mechanical equipment meet setback requirements, additional architectural details, like decorative window shutters or colonial window grid be incorporated into the final design, and as many trees as possible will be preserved.
Board questions for staff: Ms. Starke asked if the applicant received the historic design review elements and the location of the dumpster. Mr. Gilmore said the design review guidelines are listed in Municode. Ms. Garrett asked if the window sizes are proportionate to other windows in the district. Chair Davis asked for historic standards the Board could suggest as an add-on. Mr. Hayek asked about the mechanical setbacks.
Applicant Presentation: Monique Neal, applicant, sworn, stated they are addressing the historical embellishment with banding around the windows.
Board questions for applicant: none
Staff final comments: Mr. Gilmore stated the Board can approve with staff conditions, add a condition for the banding or have no conditions at all.
Applicant final comments: none
The Chair, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: none
Certificate of Appropriateness
Duplex
1102 Avenue E
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2026-00017 for a duplex at 1102 Avenue E.
The chair called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement and notice requirements.
The chair inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Mr. Westbury - no
Ms. Spivey - no
Mr. Hayek - no
Ms. Starke - no
Ms. Garrett - no
Chair Davis - no
The chair opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Staff Presentation: Mr. Gilmore said the applicant is requesting approval for the construction of a duplex with associated driveway, parking and landscaping on a prominent site in the Lincoln Park Historic District. He said the design of the new building meets the technical aspects of the Secretary of the Interior regarding size, scale, materials and massing; however, the architectural elements do not provide a continuity of character of the surrounding historic neighborhood. Mr. Gilmore said staff recommends the Historic Preservation Board approve the request with conditions that all mechanical equipment meet setback requirements, additional architectural details, like decorative window shutters or colonial window grid be incorporated into the final design, and as many trees as possible will be preserved.
Board questions for staff: Ms. Starke asked if the applicant received the historic design review elements and the location of the dumpster. Mr. Gilmore said the design review guidelines are listed in Municode. Ms. Garrett asked if the window sizes are proportionate to other windows in the district. Chair Davis asked for historic standards the Board could suggest as an add-on. Mr. Hayek asked about the mechanical setbacks.
Applicant Presentation: Monique Neal, applicant, sworn, stated they are addressing the historical embellishment with banding around the windows.
Board questions for applicant: none
Staff final comments: Mr. Gilmore stated the Board can approve with staff conditions, add a condition for the banding or have no conditions at all.
Applicant final comments: none
The Chair, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: none
Motion was made by Betty Jo Starke, and seconded by Charlie Hayek
to approve Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2026-00017 for a duplex located at 1102 Avenue E with window banding.
- AYE:
- Minnie Spivey, Anthony Westbury, Charlie Hayek, Betty Jo Starke, Susan Garrett, Chair KeAndrea Davis
Passed
d.
PZCOA2026-00025
Certificate of Appropriateness
Facade Renovation
207-209 Orange Avenue
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2026-00025 for facade renovation at 207-209 Orange Avenue.
The chair called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement and notice requirements.
The chair inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Ms. Spivey - no
Mr. Westbury - no
Mr. Hayek - no
Ms. Starke - no
Ms. Garrett - no
Chair Davis - no
The chair opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Staff Presentation: Mr. Gilmore said the 1924 structure is a two-story brick-and-mortar mixed-use building with a flat commercial roof. The applicant is requesting approval to do an exterior renovation to the front façade, including adding outdoor window boxes and hurricane shutters to the upper windows, and renovating the entrance way, including replacing the exterior flooring, removing tile, replacing the windows and replacing the front doors with ADA-compliant entrances. Mr. Gilmore showed two different options, and he said the applicant prefers option A. Mr. Gilmore concluded by saying the overall proposal and design are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standard 9 and 10.
Board questions for staff: Mr. Hayek asked if the windows would be impact glass. He said option B has smaller windows and would be less expensive.
Applicant Presentation: Kris Einstein, owner, sworn, said smaller windows would be less expensive, but there may be an issue with lining up the windows in the current space. She said there was not much room between the windows and the doors. Ms. Einstein said the windows would be impact glass. She noted that if the doors are expanded, the windows will have to shrink down, but they are trying to keep them as large as possible.
Board questions for applicant: Mr. Hayek said a transom is historical, and he asked if a faux transom would work.
Staff final comments: Mr. Gilmore said the applicant could apply for an administrative Certificate of Appropriateness instead of having to come back to the Historic Preservation Board or choose option A with the transom recommendation.
Applicant final comments: none
The Chair, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: Ms. Garrett suggested approving option B with the transom and if it is not practical, the applicant could come back for a modified option. Mr. Hayek suggested a recommendation instead of a condition to make it look like there is a transom above the doors.
Certificate of Appropriateness
Facade Renovation
207-209 Orange Avenue
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2026-00025 for facade renovation at 207-209 Orange Avenue.
The chair called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with the advertisement and notice requirements.
The chair inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Ms. Spivey - no
Mr. Westbury - no
Mr. Hayek - no
Ms. Starke - no
Ms. Garrett - no
Chair Davis - no
The chair opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on the item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Staff Presentation: Mr. Gilmore said the 1924 structure is a two-story brick-and-mortar mixed-use building with a flat commercial roof. The applicant is requesting approval to do an exterior renovation to the front façade, including adding outdoor window boxes and hurricane shutters to the upper windows, and renovating the entrance way, including replacing the exterior flooring, removing tile, replacing the windows and replacing the front doors with ADA-compliant entrances. Mr. Gilmore showed two different options, and he said the applicant prefers option A. Mr. Gilmore concluded by saying the overall proposal and design are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standard 9 and 10.
Board questions for staff: Mr. Hayek asked if the windows would be impact glass. He said option B has smaller windows and would be less expensive.
Applicant Presentation: Kris Einstein, owner, sworn, said smaller windows would be less expensive, but there may be an issue with lining up the windows in the current space. She said there was not much room between the windows and the doors. Ms. Einstein said the windows would be impact glass. She noted that if the doors are expanded, the windows will have to shrink down, but they are trying to keep them as large as possible.
Board questions for applicant: Mr. Hayek said a transom is historical, and he asked if a faux transom would work.
Staff final comments: Mr. Gilmore said the applicant could apply for an administrative Certificate of Appropriateness instead of having to come back to the Historic Preservation Board or choose option A with the transom recommendation.
Applicant final comments: none
The Chair, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: Ms. Garrett suggested approving option B with the transom and if it is not practical, the applicant could come back for a modified option. Mr. Hayek suggested a recommendation instead of a condition to make it look like there is a transom above the doors.
Motion was made by Susan Garrett, and seconded by Anthony Westbury to approve Certificate of Appropriateness PZCOA2026-00025 located at 207-209 Orange Avenue for option B facade renovation with a transom or faux transom above the doors.
- AYE:
- Anthony Westbury, Charlie Hayek, Betty Jo Starke, Susan Garrett, Minnie Spivey, Chair KeAndrea Davis
Passed
6.
NEW BUSINESS
a.
Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals
b.
Updated City of Fort Pierce Condemnation and Demolition of Structures Procedures
Mr. Coss gave a presentation on the rules of procedure for condemnation and demolition of structures. He said resolution 25–R65 was adopted by the City Commission on October 13, 2025, when a structure was condemned by a licensed inspector and demolition is the desired outcome.
He reviewed the condemnation process and highlighted that the affidavit and copy of the notice of violation are recorded and are also forwarded to the Historic Preservation Officer (if applicable). Mr. Coss explained the demolition determination, the demolition approval process and the demolition procedure. He said the City Commission determines whether the structure is unsafe and shall be demolished. Mr. Coss stated the second phase is if the structure is within a designated historic district, or has otherwise been declared historic, the resolution for demolition approved by the City Commission is forwarded to the Historic Preservation Officer for the matter to be placed before the Historic Preservation Board to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness to have the structure demolished.
Chair Davis asked why the Historic Preservation Board makes a decision after the City Commission.
Mr. Hayek asked about to handle a building that was partially demolished. Mr. Coss said that affirmative maintenance may come into play, and he suggested the matter be brought to the Board by the Historic Preservation Officer.
Mr. Coss gave a presentation on the rules of procedure for condemnation and demolition of structures. He said resolution 25–R65 was adopted by the City Commission on October 13, 2025, when a structure was condemned by a licensed inspector and demolition is the desired outcome.
He reviewed the condemnation process and highlighted that the affidavit and copy of the notice of violation are recorded and are also forwarded to the Historic Preservation Officer (if applicable). Mr. Coss explained the demolition determination, the demolition approval process and the demolition procedure. He said the City Commission determines whether the structure is unsafe and shall be demolished. Mr. Coss stated the second phase is if the structure is within a designated historic district, or has otherwise been declared historic, the resolution for demolition approved by the City Commission is forwarded to the Historic Preservation Officer for the matter to be placed before the Historic Preservation Board to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness to have the structure demolished.
Chair Davis asked why the Historic Preservation Board makes a decision after the City Commission.
Mr. Hayek asked about to handle a building that was partially demolished. Mr. Coss said that affirmative maintenance may come into play, and he suggested the matter be brought to the Board by the Historic Preservation Officer.
8.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Kris Einstein, owner of 207-209 Orange Avenue, suggested the Historic Preservation Board members should ask the applicant more questions if they do not understand what is being done. She stated she is under a FPRA grant timeline and the approval given by the Board could set her back. She said she is hopeful an administrative approval would apply if the windows need to be shrunk down to be even with the doors.
Kris Einstein, owner of 207-209 Orange Avenue, suggested the Historic Preservation Board members should ask the applicant more questions if they do not understand what is being done. She stated she is under a FPRA grant timeline and the approval given by the Board could set her back. She said she is hopeful an administrative approval would apply if the windows need to be shrunk down to be even with the doors.
9.
CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES
All members were in attendance.
All members were in attendance.
10.
ADJOURNMENT