Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves several variances, denies one fence‑height request after neighbor dispute
Summary
On July 14 the board approved variances for lot impervious coverage (21 Deer Park), a rear‑setback lanai (63 Ocean Oaks Lane), and an impervious‑area variance for a Seaside Landings pool; it denied a 1‑ft fence‑height variance at 13 Apache Street amid neighbor testimony about harassment and boundary disputes.
The Flagler County Planning & Development Board considered multiple variance requests July 14 and reached a mix of outcomes.
21 Deer Park (project 2026040080): Planner Hannah Laderman said the request seeks a 7% variance to exceed a 40% impervious coverage cap in Plantation Reserve due to a plat interpretation and lot dimensions. The board approved the variance unanimously after staff concluded the relief was the minimum necessary and the house was already permitted under earlier measures.
13 Apache Street (project 2026050020): The applicant’s son, Louis Sawmill, presented testimony describing ongoing disputes with a neighbor (lights, alleged threats) and asked for a 1‑foot increase in rear fence height for privacy. Neighbors gave conflicting accounts; one neighbor who rebuilt the fence opposed the variance. Board members described the matter as a boundary dispute and some said the variance criteria did not clearly favor approval. After debate and a tie in an initial vote, a subsequent motion to deny carried 4–2.
63 Ocean Oaks Lane (project 2026050050): Homeowner Ed McDonald asked for a 10‑foot rear setback variance to extend a screened lanai by 10 feet. No public opposition appeared; the board approved unanimously but added a condition that the lanai remain unenclosed (no future conversion into conditioned living space).
215 Seaside Landings Drive South (project 2026026050052): The applicant sought an 8.82% variance above the Seaside Landings PUD 35% impervious limit to permit a pool; after revisions and drainage mitigation, nearby neighbors and adjacent homeowners supported the request. The board approved unanimously with standard conditions, and language preventing enclosure of the improvement into conditioned space.
The planning board recorded motions and vote tallies for each action; all approved items will be forwarded to county records and, where applicable, to permitting review for conditions and engineering follow up.
