The Flagler County Board of County Commissioners on Jan. 13 denied an appeal of the Planning & Development Board's October approval of a modification to a special exception allowing an overflow valet parking lot to serve Bronx House Pizza at 93 and 95 Sanchez Avenue in the Hammock.

The appeal focused on whether the planning board's decision was supported by competent, substantial evidence; whether affected residents received due process and notice; and whether the modified use met the county's nine special-exception standards in the land development code. Appellants argued the lot is effectively a prohibited standalone parking facility, cited safety and noise concerns, and said required covenants and procedures were not followed. Supporters and the applicant said the lot is an overflow valet lot tied to Bronx House and designed to reduce unsafe roadside parking.

The planning director and the applicant told the commission the proposal was designed to minimize impacts: it was proposed as a valet-only lot to avoid pedestrian traffic across A1A, to preserve existing trees and landscaping buffers where feasible, and to limit lighting and paving. Staff said technical review would require a Florida Department of Transportation driveway permit and that the planning board's approval included conditions tying the lot to the restaurant use and a recorded development order.

Appellants highlighted parking and traffic photos, neighborhood testimony about noise and prior unpermitted events, and argued the county's RC residential-limited commercial zoning does not allow a standalone parking use. The applicant's attorney and owners said the site is not a standalone commercial parking lot: the development order and recorded conditions tie the lot's existence to the restaurant and make it enforceable as part of the special-exception approval.

After public comment and discussion, Commissioner Richardson moved to deny the appeal (thereby leaving the planning board's approval in place); the motion was seconded and carried (commissioners voted aye; two commissioners recorded opposition during the roll call). The commission's action leaves the modification in effect; the applicant still must complete any required permits and site-development steps (including DOT driveway approvals) before opening the lot for parking operations.

The commission's decision also included direction that staff continue to monitor compliance and that any subsequent code violations would be handled through the county's enforcement processes.

Notes: The applicant and neighbors disagreed sharply in testimony about the scope of prior events at the restaurant, exact parking counts and whether the valve/overflow lot is the least intrusive way to address roadside parking. The commission's review was limited to the planning board record and the legal standards for appellate review of a board decision; it did not reopen evidentiary findings.