Flagler County planning board approves three residential variances, citing site constraints and safety concerns

At its meeting, the Flagler County Planning and Development Board approved three variance requests affecting residential properties, finding site-specific constraints or safety reasons justified limited relief from setback and fence-height rules.

The board approved project 2025100032, a variance for Lot 14 in the Grandmere subdivision that would reduce the left (north) street-side setback from the 25-foot requirement to about 18 feet, 11½ inches to allow a pool and pool deck. Planner Simone Kenny told the board the cul-de-sac from Granada Boulevard creates an irregular lot shape and that the requested 6½-foot variance is the minimum relief necessary to accommodate the proposed pool. Neighbor Mark Trudeau, owner of 510 Granada Drive, objected and asked the board to reject the request, saying the larger pool deck "effectively impinges a bit on my lot" and that he had received multiple emails and complaints from the lot owner. Applicant Chan Brooks replied that the pool will be enclosed by a fence and enhanced landscaping and said the cul-de-sac, not developer intent, created the constraint. Following board discussion and a roll-call vote, the motion to approve carried unanimously.

Separately, the board approved project 2025100047, an after-the-fact request for a 2-foot front-yard fence-height variance at 82 Sanchez Ave. Staff said the applicant had already built a 6-foot fence (the code limit in the front setback is 4 feet) and that the site’s proximity to a Citgo station and privacy/safety concerns warranted consideration. The applicant, who identified himself as Robert Pittenger, said he built the fence because his son is "level 3 autistic" and has a history of elopement; he described prior incidents and ATV traffic near the property and said 4 feet was not sufficient to keep his son from reaching the roadway. Members of the public spoke in support of the variance. The board found the fence integrated into the landscaping and approved the variance in a unanimous roll-call vote.

The board also approved project 2025110006, a variance for Lot 25 in Magnolia Manor Unit 1. The applicant, Scott Dennegren, said he intends to enclose an existing carport for new living space within the structure’s current footprint and possibly add a small front porch later. Staff noted the lot is undersized and contains a nonconforming dwelling predating the current land-development code; neighbors did not speak in opposition. The board approved the requested front- and rear-yard variances unanimously.

These decisions were procedural approvals of specific variances; in each case staff read the variance criteria into the record and the board weighed site constraints (lot shape, preexisting nonconformity) or safety justifications. No changes to land use designations were approved at this meeting.

Board action and next steps: each variance approval was a final local land-use decision subject to standard appeal rights. The larger comprehensive-plan and rezoning items discussed later in the meeting were continued for further analysis and input.