Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flagler County board approves 17‑foot side‑setback variance for 2727 County Road 304
Summary
The Flagler County Planning and Development Board approved application 3182, granting a variance to reduce a west side setback from 25 feet to 8 feet so a 30x96 structure can be added on or adjacent to an existing slab at 2727 County Road 304, despite staff recommending denial based on variance criteria 1 and 2.
The Flagler County Planning and Development Board voted to approve application 3182 on June 11, granting a variance to reduce a west side setback from 25 feet to 8 feet for property at 2727 County Road 304.
Staff planner Mr. Mingle told the board the request was a “before‑the‑fact” variance in the agricultural zoning district and summarized the parcel’s layout, flood zone (Zone X), and the presence of an adjacent pond. The variance would allow a 30‑by‑96 building to sit partly on an existing slab; staff’s packet showed a 96x30 proposed footprint and an existing 40x50 barn nearby. Mingle said the request did not meet the first two variance criteria, noting the large parcel offered alternative placement and that the circumstance was owner‑created because a slab and prior structure already existed.
Property owner and applicant Chris Barney said the proposed building is needed to store an RV and boat and to avoid tearing down recently installed fencing used for grazing horses and cattle. Barney said moving the building elsewhere would force him to remove pasture used for hay and would place the new structure near a well and existing pool. He stated the proposed building would be 2,880 square feet and that portions of the slab are existing and would be added onto.
Board members questioned whether the lot’s unusual shape and existing pad created a practical hardship. Several members noted the adjacent property owner provided written support and that the nearest adjacent feature is a pond rather than a dwelling, reducing likely detriment. After deliberation and no public speakers, a board member moved to approve the variance; the motion passed by voice vote. The transcript records at least one explicit opposing vote; the chair announced the motion carried.
The board did not record individual roll‑call votes in the transcript; the transcript shows voice votes and one recorded nay. The variance will be recorded as a public order in county records, which staff noted becomes part of the public record for future property buyers.
The board’s action was limited to the variance request; no other permits or site development exceptions were authorized in the meeting record. The meeting returned to the agenda after the vote.
Ending: The approval concludes the board’s action on application 3182; the transcript does not record subsequent appeal, conditions attached to the variance, or specific effective dates.
