Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies rear-setback variance for 4278 Old A1A South, citing alternative building options
Summary
The planning board voted to deny a 13.4-foot rear-yard setback variance requested for an addition at 4278 Old A1A South, finding the applicant had reasonable alternatives and neighbors that the variance would impair neighborhood character.
The Flagler County Planning and Development Board denied a variance request for an addition at 4278 Old A1A South after finding the applicant had options to achieve additional living space without encroaching into the rear setback.
Staff explained the parcel was irregularly shaped and the proposed addition would encroach 13.36 feet into the 20-foot minimum rear setback, producing a triangular encroachment of about 248 square feet. The property was rezoned to R-1B in 2014 to address earlier nonconforming issues; the current owners sought the variance to add living space where existing site constraints — septic drain field location and bedroom egress windows — complicated alternative layouts.
Attorney Robert Dickinson, representing the owners, said the addition was intended to provide usable interior space and that the plan avoided encroaching into the Army Corps upland right-of-way. Opposing neighbors argued the lot is buildable as currently zoned and that septic tanks can be relocated to permit an addition without a variance. Dennis Baer, speaking on behalf of neighbors, told the board a variance was unnecessary because the property could be used in accordance with its zoning: "The owner is not going to be deprived of all reasonable use of the property as allowed in the current zoning district," he said.
Board members debated whether the owner's hardship was self-created and whether the addition could be reduced in size or shifted to avoid the setback. One member said: "Make the room smaller, you can comply with a setback and you have reasonable use of your property." After discussion, the board voted to deny the variance by a 4-2 vote; staff recorded the denial and the board directed that any revised proposal should include evidence demonstrating lack of reasonable alternatives.
The denial means the owners may either submit a redesigned addition that complies with the rear-yard setback or provide further documentation showing that reconfiguration would render the property unusable for the intended purpose.
