[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6146016,"mediaKeyId","5528503-8165958c38a840e849d7c032373a86b4","parentId",5528503,"title","Planning board denies appeal, upholds director’s ruling that indoor boat storage may be allowed in C-2 parcel","audioSeconds",4327,"startMs",727000,"endMs",5054000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5528503-8165958c38a840e849d7c032373a86b4&start=727&end=5054","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5528503-8165958c38a840e849d7c032373a86b4/thumbnail_727000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6146016/Flagler-County/Florida/Planning-board-denies-appeal-upholds-directors-ruling-that-indoor-boat-storage-may-be-allowed-in-C-2-parcel","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146016-f8e2b77ac54fda9813bfa4cd583b3fbf/orig.mp4?Expires=1773585416&Signature=UcppYZ-M-Q07ESF8BG6y4izQZeaMWoFV-CCBYjcgAYdLpgw8nzItdZT7foJm3h9--gCXX9XBS~Z39Lm3lLpOrf3oHYd3L-RaAkWyvhkdMoHLX4k5Mzy7zZIepYJYf4-TDv4OfJjXQHrQAHNW0Axxy~OVhJg6bSmB9uA~muyZo8qOU9N9tMVs0H-RjORE2dbeaZ5Ix5sOgQtkTadGeHxvEvwF~kAFN7PeiXhEJCwTQOw0B1khArZot4~DBk1uR97qt1Xvh-Y7LuTEqcD-odS2JHugVet9rYY1Xi02PPmE1zXBBm0mvLNjvQhuxQefnIQZ-XWn~npPVhlnrww3KKlfsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Flagler County, FL","date","2025-08-05T05:18:30.007Z","article","The Flagler County Planning Board denied an appeal of Planning Director Adam Mingle’s decision that indoor boat storage could be treated as a use comparable to previously approved boat manufacturing on a commercially zoned parcel in the Hammock, voting 4–1.

The question before the board was narrowly legal and procedural: did the planning director have authority under the land-development code to determine that an indoor boat-storage use is similar enough to a previously authorized boat-manufacturing use to be permitted in the C-2 district on that parcel, or should that classification require a planning-board hearing or other rezoning/special-exception process.

Appellants’ counsel, identified in the record as Mister Bayer, argued the director overstepped. Bayer told the board: “In your c 2 zoning, which this property is, it does not allow boat storage as a permitted use. So it's not allowed.” He said the earlier boat-manufacturing approval had specific limits — previously approved operations were described in minutes as limited to “one boat at a time,” daytime operations, no fiberglass work, and roughly 12 parking spaces — and that the replacement plan proposes a much larger building and up to 120 parking spaces, a fuel storage tank and forklift operations.

Planning Director Adam Mingle defended his determination and the interpretive authority his position carries, explaining the code gives the planning director responsibility for interpretation. He summarized his view in shorthand during the hearing: “If you could build it, you could store it.” Mingle said he understood the distinction between activities inside a fully enclosed building (uses subject to building and site standards) and site-plan elements such as parking, fuel tanks and operational intensity, which would be addressed in later reviews.

County attorney Miss Stangel (recorded as legal counsel during the hearing) and other staff walked the board through the relevant code language. Commissioners and speakers debated several points: whether C-2 text that allows “other commercial uses of a nature similar to those listed” vests that determination with the planning board or the planning director; whether nonconforming-use doctrine and earlier rezoning conditions (including a 40-foot buffer and limits recorded in past minutes) control today’s question; and whether the proposed indoor storage is materially more intense than the historical manufacturing use.

Public commenters urged a fuller public hearing rather than an administrative determination. Jan Sullivan, a Hammock resident, said the new use “is hardly less intense,” pointing to the proposed 120 parking spaces and forklift operations. Kathy Vee, another resident, urged the board to use a public process so neighbors could weigh in on screening and operational conditions.

Representing the project, Bob Millian of Hammock Harbor told the board the property is zoned C-2 and that a 120-space parking layout and the building-size envelope were within the code’s numerical limits. Millian asked the board not to conflate site-plan intensity limits with the discrete question about whether indoor storage, within a permitted building envelope, could be a permitted use.

Board members split over whether the planning director should have resolved the question administratively or whether the ambiguity required a planning-board determination or county-commission review. Several board members said the code is ambiguous and the issue is gray; one commissioner said he believed the planning director does have authority to interpret the code and that Mingle’s decision was reasonable on the record. After deliberation, a motion to deny the appeal — i.e., to uphold the planning director’s determination — passed 4–1.

The board’s denial means the planning director’s interpretation stands; it does not, by itself, approve the proposed site plan, which remains subject to technical review and subsequent approvals. Staff and the applicant will still need to resolve site-plan details such as parking layout, operational hours, fuel handling and any conditions tied to compatibility with the adjacent residential area. The decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners by affected parties or the applicant, per local procedures.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning & Development Board 9/10/2019","oneSentenceSummary","The Flagler County Planning Board denied an appeal of Planning Director Adam Mingle’s determination that indoor boat storage is a use comparable to previously approved boat manufacturing on a C-2 parcel in the Hammock, voting 4–1 after extended legal and public discussion about zoning authority, intensity and neighborhood compatibility.","taxTitle","Flagler County, Florida","taxId",2877,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6146019,"Planning board approves special-exception application 31-79 after applicant offers alternate access",0,2717000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5528503-8165958c38a840e849d7c032373a86b4&start=2717&end=2717","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5528503-8165958c38a840e849d7c032373a86b4/thumbnail_2717000.jpg","/articles/6146019/Flagler-County/Florida/Planning-board-approves-special-exception-application-31-79-after-applicant-offers-alternate-access","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6146019-5cbb4f305f7dfb88603a5c60c2000cff/orig.mp4?Expires=1773585416&Signature=TMy4jwIelS~JH4vyBqXf70EL18jvaTvoKpMuflNK3Xa4MC7WNC2BduBdj3fV44Imti8hgUN6fTUb0OCTCPgXtzla7uy2Dyw4o5EvHA60Jhu6AGMOP20PuL43Hc7c2GrZ5P7y9FwlZwvbOR9o3UJlBmGLGOne0HmFipWJUQuFjSQm6cAIs5xMtAayfrDUPyDGDhhysKFPmSsKR9yQQXNs1qhhw5-Igh2Qi1clm5VlF7lxyraWf3y3pgWXqz6q2iVYp0nuKjxQ9uC~aRQlaXSrFZjNK1FTOCI8PgD9XDLYKrZYCQWwbeSdocJIwL9VHvW~FqCe53H09NUomhTOf57y2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Flagler County Planning Board approved Application 31-79, a special-exception request for soil extraction in an agricultural zoning district, after staff recommended the site met the permit criteria and the applicant offered an alternate haul-route alignment.

The decision matters because the project would generate heavy truck traffic and change land use patterns near residences; planners and neighbors focused discussion on how to reduce noise, dust and visual impacts.

Staff planning presentation noted the application had been continued from the prior meeting and that the applicant had provided additional maps showing wetlands and an alternate access that shifts the haul entrance roughly 415 feet east and southeast of the originally proposed connection to County Road 13. The staff report said that, based on materials provided, staff’s recommendation was that the approval criteria for the special exception had been met.

Shannon Acevedo of Matthews Design Group, the applicant’s planner, told the board the team had discussed several access options and that “there are some potential wetlands and low lying lands” on parts of the property. Acevedo said the project team did not have a full topographic survey but that “we are open to moving not a little bit further south in order to further mitigate from where that residence is.”

Board members and public commenters pressed for detail on haul volume and route. Acevedo and applicant representatives said the pit plan included an estimated 365,000 cubic yards of material to be extracted (compacted in place) and that staff previously estimated roughly 50 truck trips per day on average for hauling. A resident urging greater separation asked whether the access could be moved “at least 2,000 feet” from residences; applicant representatives said moving the entrance south, between the two mapped wetland areas, would likely be feasible and that they were willing to discuss that alignment with staff and neighbors.

Tim Reester of Rayonier Incorporated, speaking for the property owner/operations side, said the company was “we're we're willing to do whatever, you know, it takes to to” address neighbors’ concerns and that moving the haul access further from residences would “give them the best, you know, peace of mind.” The project team noted an alternative labeled Road 55 on project handouts had been considered but was described as a gated logging road that project engineers said would be infeasible for heavy truck traffic.

The board opened the item for public comment and then voted on a motion related to the application; a motion and second were recorded and the chair called the question. The board voted in favor and the chair declared the motion carried.

The record before the board included the staff report with eight approval criteria for the operation, the applicant’s alternate-access graphic, and a wetlands-illustration the applicant provided. Staff said the site plan and any detailed construction measures would be addressed in subsequent approvals and coordination with any resource agencies if wetlands or other regulated features are formally delineated.

Board members and staff repeatedly emphasized that the alternate alignment and any movement to avoid wetlands would need final surveying and design work before construction, and that the exact haul-route location and mitigation measures would be settled as part of subsequent permitting and site-plan review.

Public comments at the meeting focused chiefly on haul-route location, truck noise and dust; no formal conditions attached to the motion were read into the record at the time of the vote. The board did not adopt a detailed relocation requirement during the hearing; staff retained responsibility to continue coordination with the applicant on access alignment and environmental constraints.","The Flagler County Planning Board approved Application 31-79, a special exception for soil extraction in an agricultural district, after staff recommended the criteria were met and the applicant presented an alternate access alignment. Board members and neighbors discussed wetlands, haul-route location and truck traffic.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board denies appeal, upholds director’s ruling that indoor boat storage may be allowed in C-2 parcel

Planning board approves special-exception application 31-79 after applicant offers alternate access