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

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.