Flagler County declines to convey 0.09‑acre strip after neighbors raise flooding and encroachment concerns

The Flagler County Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 9 debated and then declined to authorize staff to begin the disposition process for a 0.09‑acre strip of county land along Hernandez Road after residents described repeated flooding and alleged encroachments on county property.

County growth‑management staff told the board the narrow strip — about 3,981 square feet, shown on the county’s parcel records — came into county ownership through a tax deed and is too small and irregular to be developed on its own. Staff recommended moving forward under the statutory disposition process in Florida Statute 125.35 (subpart 2), which would notify adjacent owners and accept sealed bids.

During roughly two hours of public comment, nearby homeowners described repeated interior flooding and provided photos and video they said showed stormwater from a neighbor’s newly built driveway funneling onto the county strip and into their yards. “This is the water that was in my home,” Steven Tyson, a resident at 70 Hernandez, told the board, citing a storm in 2024. Resident Paula Sandoval said the county’s stormwater master plan requires on‑site runoff management and urged the board not to convey the strip because doing so would reward alleged noncompliance with drainage rules.

Staff said it had completed a survey (about $2,500 in cost to date), grading work by road and bridge crews to improve runoff on the adjacent road, and an analysis of the deed history. Growth‑management director Adam Mingle described the parcel’s deed timeline and told commissioners the county’s options are constrained: “We want to get it away from our ownership,” he said, explaining the statute contemplates notice to adjacent owners and sealed bids from them.

Board members asked whether the structures cited by neighbors were permitted and whether conveying the strip would change liability for past flooding. Staff said county permitting records go back only about 10 years and that some structures appear to pre‑date available electronic records; staff did not commit to retroactive permitting or demolition of structures if the parcel were sold. Several residents requested conditions — drainage easements, indemnities or bonds — should the county decide to sell; staff responded that the statutory sale process requires the board to accept the highest sealed bid or reject all offers and does not itself impose those particular contractual conditions.

Commissioner Dance moved to authorize the conveyance; Commissioner Hansen seconded. The roll call, as recorded in the meeting minutes, showed Commissioners Dance and Hansen voting in favor and Commissioners Carney, Pennington and Richardson voting against. The motion therefore failed.

With the board split, staff left the parcel in county ownership and said it will continue limited corrective measures already enacted (grading and stormwater follow‑up) and will accept further direction from the commission on next steps.

Next steps: the parcel remains county property; commissioners can direct staff to reopen the item with additional options (for example, seeking title work, negotiating conditions for sale, or pursuing enforcement/removal of encroachments) at a future meeting.