Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Owner Builder Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Walton County approves owner-builder setback relief after debate over porch and flood-elevation issues
Summary
An owner-builder, Neil Infault, received a limited front-setback variance after the board weighed options including removing or redesigning a porch and addressing a finished-floor elevation issue in a flood zone. The board approved an amended, footprint-limited variance to avoid tearing the house down.
Neil Infault, an owner-builder, told Walton County’s zoning board on Nov. 17 that a foundation-survey error left his house’s front corner about 16.8 feet from the road where the code requires 20 feet. Infault said he accepted responsibility and asked for a variance, explaining that tearing the nearly dried-in structure down would be prohibitively expensive.
Planning staff and the board identified two complicating issues: the planned front porch (as shown on drawings) would increase the encroachment to about 8.2 feet; and the foundation survey showed the finished floor elevation at about 7.4 feet, while the applicable flood-zone finished floor requirement was roughly 9.0 feet (about 1.6 feet higher). Donnie Sway, the Building Plans Review manager, explained the county’s process: planning reviews site plans and requires foundation surveys and finished-floor elevations; although those approvals are supposed to be a hard stop before vertical construction, builders commonly proceed at their own risk and the foundation survey often arrives after framing begins.
Commissioners discussed alternatives: requiring the owner to remove or redesign the porch, granting a limited variance just to the existing footprint, or granting a larger variance to permit the porch. Several commissioners expressed sympathy for a homeowner who had attempted to build his own home but also emphasized the need to enforce survey and elevation requirements in future projects. The applicant said he could forgo a porch or redesign it if necessary; staff and commissioners offered technical suggestions for recessing the door or adding a side porch.
The board ultimately amended an initial motion and approved a narrower variance limited to the existing encroaching footprint (the motion and amendment were seconded and carried by majority vote). Commissioners also asked staff to address the broader procedural issue — how to reduce post-foundation discoveries by ensuring foundation surveys are completed and reviewed before vertical construction.
The board did not resolve the finished-floor/flood-elevation correction during the hearing; staff indicated the owner will need to address the elevation issue with planning and building officials as part of permit compliance.
