Owner‑builder granted amended front‑setback variance after board debates right‑of‑way measurement and flood elevation concerns

An owner‑builder who discovered after pouring his foundation that one corner of his house encroached into the front setback received an amended variance from the Walton County board on Nov. 17, 2025, after a lengthy discussion about right‑of‑way measurement, alternative design options and flood‑elevation compliance.

Neil Infault told the board he hired a foundation crew that staked and poured his slab and that the resulting finished floor elevation and lot placement left the structure approximately 16.8 feet from the front lot line — about 3.2–3.4 feet inside the county's 20‑foot front setback. "I'm building a home for my wife and family, as an owner builder... I knew I was gonna make some mistakes and I made a big one," Infault said.

Staff and board members differed over how the right‑of‑way is measured on the lot — whether the setback starts at the far side of the right‑of‑way or at the nearer edge of the property line — and staff walked the board through how a right‑of‑way easement can change the observed setback. Planning's Building Plans Review manager, Donnie Sway, explained foundation survey and finished‑floor elevation processes and warned builders that if they proceed before an approved foundation survey they do so "at their own risk." "They keep going... it's supposed to be a hard stop," Sway said.

The board discussed design alternatives (reconfiguring a porch to the side, recessing the entry, or limiting any approved variance to the existing footprint), the cost of tearing down partially completed work, and whether to grant a front‑setback variance large enough to permit a porch. After debate and an amendment limiting relief to the encroaching footprint and reducing the scope of the front porch variance, members approved the amended motion on a voice vote. The board also recommended staff report back on process changes to reduce the number of after‑the‑fact foundation variances.

Separately, staff flagged a flood‑elevation discrepancy in the applicant's papers: planning staff noted the slab elevation on the survey was about 7.4 feet while flood‑zone rules required a roughly 9‑foot finished floor in that location; staff said the applicant must resolve flood‑elevation compliance as part of the permitting corrections.

What happens next: The variance is limited to the existing footprint as approved; the applicant must work with planning to resolve the finished‑floor/flood elevation issue and to provide the required foundation survey and any plan changes before the county permits further work or issues inspections.