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

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.