[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5973456,"mediaKeyId","5830399-0d2cdcb9c0d56235f0bdd285cf41590f","parentId",5830399,"title","Zoning board overturns director’s order, allows Newman family to keep perimeter fence in Highlands Park","audioSeconds",5067,"startMs",2097000,"endMs",7164000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830399-0d2cdcb9c0d56235f0bdd285cf41590f&start=2097&end=7164","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830399-0d2cdcb9c0d56235f0bdd285cf41590f/thumbnail_2097000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5973456/Walton-County/Florida/Zoning-board-overturns-directors-order-allows-Newman-family-to-keep-perimeter-fence-in-Highlands-Park","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973456-d4f8bae18ef6fb380c55b50458fa760e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770537178&Signature=iPVgCjji38ykPs5OtY34VWP~Fv3wk1fnX5m1IcrqSA1WkAJ6NELeIX1CcxhXsjmzD~NBc21H9JnjPnJOzao0QRVBjegcU3LBl7XfCNAlfaZGt92wzStKZvfuzVQVVVVSlcKJ1sAYE9N5gm1oGHdTtihjHO7~WmmGLana44fAY2DppRGf03-PDru7iIntajm6NQrAcbYexGH3wQctlSnqbnOXDL-W0igktbR7cuYTGt6NoQeItYnCUu0PGFgUOsM56w~RHoW-R5sJD2vXeXM5JGqogxx6rI7nHBok-01t6Hov0XGTWL6~0GjD0TKNORt0rJJMXJLj3v2ozM-tYu-buA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Walton County","date","2025-09-26T00:53:17.277Z","article","The Walton County Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 25 upheld an appeal filed by Paul and Cynthia Newman and reversed a director’s determination that required the Newmans to move a six-foot wooden fence 10 feet inside a platted landscape buffer in the Highlands Park subdivision. The board’s de novo review concluded that the county’s land-development code is ambiguous on whether perimeter fences are permitted inside a required landscape buffer; the board voted to resolve that ambiguity in favor of the property owner.

Why it matters: The ruling affects where property owners may place fences relative to platted landscape buffers in older Walton County subdivisions. Several speakers warned the decision could create inconsistent outcomes unless the county clarifies its code; proponents argued the ruling protects a core property right to exclude trespassers.

What the appeal contested: The Newmans installed a six-foot wooden fence at or just inside their rear property line to stop repeated trespassing and, by their account, to protect the household from nearby beehives and safety risks. Planning staff initially indicated by email that the fence placement was permissible, but interim Planning Director Steven Schoen later issued a written director’s determination concluding the fence was within a required 10-foot landscape buffer and therefore must be moved unless the property owner reduced the buffer through the alternative screening/wall option identified in the code.

Legal and planning arguments: Attorney Robert Kaufman for the Newmans argued the applicable 2004 PUD language and the county code allowed fences at property lines and that the code does not clearly prohibit fences in the buffer; he also cited Florida case law that zoning or land-use ambiguities should be construed in favor of property owners (Rinker Materials Corp. and Persaud Properties) and state policy recognizing the right to exclude (statutory references introduced at the hearing).

Planner Melissa Ward testified that the PUD approval language specifically listed fences as permitted within setbacks and that a landscape buffer on the plat was not a preservation or environmental buffer but a compatibility buffer intended to separate differing densities. Ward argued a property-line fence plus plantings inside the buffer would enhance, not defeat, the buffer’s purpose.

County testimony and director’s rationale: Interim Planning Director Steven Schoen said his written determination adopted a different reading: the buffer language and the list of prohibited uses implied fences were not allowed within the buffer. Schoen told the board that where the code does not list a use as permitted in the buffer, his interpretation is that it is not allowed; he also offered the reduction-by-wall alternative as the county’s available remedy.

Public and association input: The Highlands Park Homeowners Association president testified the HOA and the neighborhood’s architectural review committee had approved the fence, that the HOA had itself installed perimeter fencing in adjacent common areas, and that the HOA wanted consistency across the subdivision. Paul Newman told the board he and his wife had put the fence up only after seeking counsel and ARC approval, and that trespassing and bee swarms had been immediate safety concerns.

Board finding and outcome: After de novo consideration, the board found the code ambiguous and, applying the established rule that ambiguities be construed in favor of property owners, sustained the appeal. The board tied much of its reasoning to reliance interest — that the Newmans and their HOA relied on staff guidance — and to property-rights language cited by the applicant’s attorney and planner. The board’s motion to approve the appeal passed with all members voting in favor.

What the board did not decide: The board’s order focused on the director’s interpretation and whether the fence must be moved; it did not resolve possible future code updates or broader county policies. The board noted that code enforcement processes remain available to neighbors if the Newmans fail to meet other obligations such as required replanting of the landscape buffer where vegetation was removed.

Ending: The Newmans may keep the fence while the HOA and property owner proceed with replanting and other measures the board and planning staff discussed. The county may consider clarifying the LDC language in future code amendments to avoid similar disputes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Zoning Board of Adjustments - Sep 25 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Walton County Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 25 reversed a Planning Director’s determination and allowed Paul and Cynthia Newman to keep a six-foot wooden fence at their rear property line in Highlands Park, finding the Land Development Code ambiguous and construing the ambiguity in favor of the property owners.","taxTitle","Walton County, Florida","taxId",28197,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973460,"Zoning board backs special-exception permit for salvage-yard storage with stricter buffer and fencing conditions",2379,277000,2656000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830399-0d2cdcb9c0d56235f0bdd285cf41590f&start=277&end=2656","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830399-0d2cdcb9c0d56235f0bdd285cf41590f/thumbnail_277000.jpg","/articles/5973460/Walton-County/Florida/Zoning-board-backs-special-exception-permit-for-salvage-yard-storage-with-stricter-buffer-and-fencing-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973460-b6d021661729f4bfe87b38e111539e8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770537178&Signature=SFXiEpsswAq60hUOS9vZmPiEYuVE0lxmO2tNh81NKHC0RJ196LU9-IMJn~Knj3HQPFoL3ft6p6y-qCe-nbfRBP-xvV9kYJPMuJUH7UCBUuPWYNOn25RiZo~f~uLVNvmBct7q41khkv6-w8-mSHJZxj5aS-FYllCYHT-GmvmjB9lf7Rdbs4fZKkTM3UB78Mg5uasSTGm66TBzP3CbaCgCCMmpyOejhostQF75bxlZBanGr1BlOp3Y246FfasfAMhPVPjKOcsmrVjMApDP6MrdsUE1WnMfalm5vsXFmoBRM5D3SssyteHMcnLQI9kpFgtDFJzLF1Mm89WdrKH8eG6rFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Walton County Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 25 recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve a special-exception permit allowing Double A Auto Salvage & Storage to use 5.18 acres at 542 County Highway 1087 for temporary vehicle storage, subject to expanded landscape buffers, a six-foot screening fence and other conditions. The board made the recommendation unanimously and will forward the matter to county commissioners for a final decision.

The permit application, filed as project MAJ23-100003, would tie the acreage to one specific heavy-industrial use — storage of vehicles awaiting transfer to the applicant’s existing crushing and processing location — instead of rezoning the parcel to heavy industrial. Planning staff entered its analysis and the public comment record into the hearing file, and the board tied its recommendation to the staff report and the Technical Review Committee conditions.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the business’s current operation already generates noise, dust, lights and visible debris; they fear those impacts would increase if the additional five acres are used for storage and become a staging area that expands crushing activity. Board members and staff responded by adding conditions meant to reduce visibility, sound and dust transmission and to make the use enforceable.

Applicants’ case and county review: Attorney Mark Davis told the board the parcel is contiguous to the applicant’s existing salvage yard and that the applicant seeks to use the site only to store vehicles temporarily before moving them to the crushing operation on the existing property. Davis said the special-exception route was chosen so the county could attach conditions and retain the authority to revoke the authorization if conditions are violated.

Planning staff explained the permit is an annual, monitored authorization rather than a rezoning and entered the staff report into the record. The staff report identifies technical conditions from the TRC, notes that the parcel’s future land use is rural residential and that the property is zoned rural village, and says a special exception is the vehicle-storage option available under county code for this site.

Public opposition and county response: Neighbors, including Rebecca Smith of Jefferson Lane, said the existing operation has increased noise and air particulates and that prior promises to limit impacts were not kept. She told the board she can “feel that in my lungs” after crushing events and asked the county to deny expansion. Other residents raised concerns about lights, nonvehicle debris at the current site and an ongoing history of code complaints they said had not been enforced.

Planning staff and the board said staff had no outstanding code complaints on record for the applicant at the time of the hearing and that the proposed conditions address many of the neighbors’ concerns. The staff report and testimony state the county will investigate complaints and may pursue code enforcement when violations are reported.

Board conditions and outcome: The board approved a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that would: require an annual permit review; require a continuous 25-foot landscape buffer along the northern property boundary (except where interrupted by an existing driveway), increase the landscape buffer along County Highway 1087 from 10 to 25 feet, locate a required six-foot screening fence on or just inside the property line with the vegetated buffer planted inside the fence, prohibit use of an on-site dirt driveway for incoming vehicle staging, require the applicant to update Jenkins Engineering drawings to remove any note implying removal of a neighbor’s fence, and make the storage-only restriction explicit in the development order.

The board tied its recommendation to the written TRC conditions in the staff report and directed that the applicant’s final drawings reflect the agreed changes. The board’s recommendation, which the chair said will be forwarded to the county commissioners, also noted that failure to comply with conditions could result in revocation of the special-exception permit.

What remains: The board’s action was a recommendation; final approval rests with the Board of County Commissioners. Staff will continue to accept complaints and monitor compliance through the annual review requirement if the county commissioners approve the permit.

Ending: The zoning board closed the item after public comment and the unanimous recommendation; the matter will next appear on the county commissioners’ agenda for final action.","Walton County zoning board recommended that county commissioners approve a special-exception permit allowing Double A Auto Salvage to use 5.18 acres for temporary vehicle storage, attaching expanded landscape buffers, a required screen fence and other conditions after neighbors raised noise, dust and lighting concerns.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973450,"Variance request for garage encroachment denied after neighbor letter and staff review",318,2832000,3150000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830399-0d2cdcb9c0d56235f0bdd285cf41590f&start=2832&end=3150","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830399-0d2cdcb9c0d56235f0bdd285cf41590f/thumbnail_2832000.jpg","/articles/5973450/Walton-County/Florida/Variance-request-for-garage-encroachment-denied-after-neighbor-letter-and-staff-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973450-9dc8d67df770296f88a2f0949aeaa316/orig.mp4?Expires=1770537178&Signature=jYkHfJoIQJMgRCOj1Zi4VZMxAkGSVReiSZttgz~HdRVp5~8J2uVokdysO-uaFhETJlO5NEn6P6brJKtfLBeajdWnhmA75KkEPBp3zgQntUMigfP4hnW7Xpv2EoOHiCtYhI6nDZFiFhxz-HPXs3f4sos0NBUY0k~2JAbo0i6kAn5BUSV0YVYuJshyOww9OtGmuARy3O8DmSz9aHm~HQucJhi7LAqZKGQCzgJeegkCrcGgZICCYCmBTvK-tr0pEWv0b9c5Ohog9OqjZhVz~XOeQddeQvLf5xkuo~yno-1EINXmmuusl7EeJaDF4tMiSe3gBr5S7PvTcqGpszEc4-TXdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Walton County Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 25 denied a variance request from Kyle Besch that would have reduced the required side-yard setback on a residential lot so a newly framed garage could remain in place. Besch had asked to reduce the side-yard requirement from 7.5 feet to approximately 6.9 feet at the northeast corner after an error during framing left a small encroachment.

Why it matters: Variances are discretionary and require the board to find the applicant has met the code’s strict criteria for an exception. The board’s denial underscores the county’s cautious approach to setbacks in residential preservation zoning districts and the need for applicants to document a qualifying hardship or other statutory grounds for relief.

Applicant’s testimony and neighbor support: Besch told the board he notified his immediate neighbor upon discovering the error, provided a copy of his survey and said the neighbor — David Bell — furnished a written letter consenting to an ecological enhancement easement and agreeing to share the cost of planting a narrow native-plant easement along the property line. Besch said the encroachment resulted from framing set before a final survey stake was placed and that removal would be a hardship because of the integrated construction.

Staff recommendation and legal standard: County staff advised against the variance, saying the request did not satisfy the minimum requirements of the land development code for a variance in a residential preservation zoning district and recommending denial. The staff report and the board’s discussion noted that the property is in a residential preservation zoning category and the code’s variance standard was not met based on the record presented.

Board action and outcome: After public comment and the applicant’s testimony, a motion to grant the variance was made and the board voted; the official record states the board denied the request. The board attached the applicant’s survey as the exhibit showing the area of encroachment and indicated the applicant may provide additional documentation and pursue other remedies.

Ending: The applicant was told the board’s written order will follow and that, if desired, he may reapply or seek to address the encroachment by removing the offending portion. The board did not adopt the proposed ecological easement as a condition in the denial.","A request to reduce a side-yard setback for a newly built garage — cutting the required 7.5-foot side yard to about 6.9 feet for one corner — was denied by the zoning board after staff advised the variance did not meet the LDC standards. The applicant had presented a neighbor’s letter offering a shared plant easement and mitigation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Zoning board overturns director’s order, allows Newman family to keep perimeter fence in Highlands Park

Zoning board backs special-exception permit for salvage-yard storage with stricter buffer and fencing conditions

Variance request for garage encroachment denied after neighbor letter and staff review