Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Mobile Home Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board approves replacement mobile home on nonconforming Magnolia Manor lot despite member concerns about 3‑ft side yard

Flagler County Planning and Development Board · June 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Flagler County Planning and Development Board approved a 4.5‑foot side‑setback variance June 10 to allow a 42‑foot replacement mobile home on a nonconforming Magnolia Manor lot, leaving a 3‑foot side yard in one location; some members expressed strong opposition citing maintenance, property‑rights and safety concerns but the motion carried.

The board on June 10 approved project 2025050012, a variance to place a 42‑foot wide replacement mobile home on Lot 40 in Magnolia Manor that would leave a minimum 3‑foot side yard on one corner. Staff described the lot as a 0.17‑acre nonconforming lot of record that predates the land‑development code, said rotating the unit to meet setbacks would likely require removing two historic live oaks and relocating septic, and recommended the relief as the minimum necessary.

Applicant Tanya Ellen Tyson said she bought the lot in 2001 and has been unable to place her purchased home because of the stricter current setbacks; she told the board she had been paying for storage on a completed mobile home since February. Tyson said the rear yard contains a deep drainage ditch and that centering the unit might not be feasible without additional neighbor notice.

Several board members pushed back on the requested 3‑foot actual side yard, saying it is too narrow for maintenance and could encumber neighbors’ property rights; one member argued such a narrow side yard makes mowing and emergency access impractical. Others noted that the parcel to the south contains a large parcel and a drainage canal and said the practical effect on an adjacent neighbor appeared limited. After debate the board voted to approve the variance with the conditions in the staff report; the motion carried with at least one member recorded as opposed in discussion.