Members of the Flagler Home Builders Association have been writing Palm Coast City Council members to urge them to vote No on a construction moratorium Pontieri has proposed for 60 to 90 days on so-called “infill” lots in the city’s sections platted by ITT. Pontieri proposed the moratorium on Jan. 5, but agreed to delay such a proposal to Tuesday’s meeting (on Jan. 16), pending a procedural, legal step that would include a formal resolution, and additional information from city staff, including the completion of the rewriting of the city’s Technical Manual that builders are required to follow. The revisions are intended to minimize future flooding issues. Those revisions have already been enacted, but if the council ratifies them on Tuesday, the call for a moratorium could be moot.
“I have been inundated with emails regarding my motion for a temporary pause on new infill lot building until the City can update its Technical Manual,” Pontieri wrote today. “Unlike the emails I’ve received in the past, this onslaught of email came from the Flagler County Home Builders Association (HBA). “In the interest of transparency and clarity, I sent the below response, which I share with the public—not to discourage the HBA from reaching out to me in the future, but to shed light on the reasoning for my very strong stance on this issue and why I know it’s in our community’s best interest.”
The HBA’s executive officer, Annamaria Long, said an email campaign in response to Pontieri’s call started on Jan. 10. The HBA was invited today to more directly respond to Pontieri’s response. Long said there would be no formal response, but disputed some of Pontieri’s facts in a note.
What follows is, first, one of the emails from an HBA member (in this case, Garry Parks), followed by Pontieri’s reply, followed by Long’s note.
The Garry Parks email:
As a member of the Flagler Home Builders Association, I am contacting you today to urge you to vote NO on the Infill Lot New Construction Moratorium proposed by Councilwoman Theresa Pontieri at the January 2, 2024 Council Meeting.
This proposal would cause an immediate and direct effect on more than 9,000 lots in our city and will have a detrimental and resounding impact on the home building industry in our region. This moratorium banishes and impoverishes the people most capable of finding solutions for this issue: the builders.
While we understand Councilwoman Pontieri’s concerns with storm water drainage on each lot, holding new home construction as ransom is not the appropriate means to alleviate the need for the updates to be completed on the Storm Water Technical Manual.
Issuing this moratorium will not simply delay construction. This ill-conceived measure will impact the private sector, city employees with multiple jobs lost and future commercial development.
As our City Council Members I know that you are dedicated to making decisions that benefit our community as a whole, and I hope that you will be moved to do the right thing when this proposal comes before you.
Theresa Pontieri’s reply:
Thank you for your correspondence in the templated email outlining the HBA’s concerns regarding a temporary pause on new infill lot building while the City updates its Technical Manual for builders. I’ve greatly considered your email. Please allow this email to serve as a response in turn to each of your issues, as well as an outline of my concerns for my residents.
First and foremost, while I was the one that motioned for the temporary, 90-day pause on new infill lot building, my motion–to have the matter heard at the Jan. 16 meeting, by which time staff and the legal department will provide additional information and a possible resolution–carried unanimously from all Councilmembers, showing the level of concern we universally have for our residents. That should speak volumes to you as vital members of our community that affect peoples’ lives on a daily basis in what you do as professionals.
While your email states that my proposal would “cause an immediate and direct effect on more than 9,000 lots in our city and will have a detrimental and resounding impact on the home building industry in our region,” the actual facts are that in the City of Palm Coast, as of today’s date, there are 64 applications for building residential permits waiting to be issued for infill lots. By contrast, there are 126 open, unresolved cases for infill lot flooding in our City due to new builds constructed adjacent to these flooding properties.
To say that this pause would have a detrimental and resounding impact on not only our City, but also our region, is not only an exaggeration and an irresponsible statement that could actually do more harm in itself than the actual pause, but it also ignores the fact that nearly double the amount of residents are experiencing flooding to their most important investment than the number of current applications pending approval for permits.
Next, your email states, “[t]his moratorium banishes and impoverishes the people most capable of finding solutions for this issue: the builders.” The definition of “banish” is to send away or punish, and no one, certainly not our Council, is sending away or punishing any builders through this action. We are simply doing our jobs, which is to protect the members of our community while we update known deficiencies in our Technical Manual. Furthermore, we initially approached you, the builders, for your input to our proposed changes to our Technical Manual back on November 17. We did not receive a response to those proposed changes until three days after I made my motion, on Jan. 5. I asked repeatedly from the dais for both the City and the HBA to move quickly on this matter, as real people are feeling real negative effects daily—not suspected ones—due to infill lot building. My requests were not heeded until after my motion was made and passed.
Your email also accuses me of “holding new home construction as ransom” and states this is not the “appropriate means to alleviate the need for” updates to our Technical Manual. At this juncture, I have to vehemently disagree, as my motion has proven that it was the only means to get these updates to our Technical Manual finalized. Prior to my motion being made, it doesn’t seem there was any sense of urgency to get these updates finalized and instituted. But magically, after my motion was made, which could have an impact on the building industry, movement was made on the Technical Manual, which we will hopefully approve at Tuesday’s business meeting, alleviating the need for any pause to new infill lot building.
Your email then goes on to accuse my motion of being “ill-conceived,” as it will not only delay construction, but will impact the private sector, city employees, and multiple jobs lost, as well as future commercial development. I’d like to see the research and statistics behind such a statement, as this pause would have minimal effects, strictly limited to new infill lot building for a limited period of time. Our city employees have plenty of other inspections and work to do.
Therefore, I am very skeptical that such a statement has any validity, and if multiple jobs and commercial development will be impacted by a (maximum) 90-day pause on new infill lot building, then we are doing something else wrong and have industries in this City with a foundation built on twigs, rather than cement. I’d say larger issues are at play that need to be focused on rather than my motion.
Your email concludes by stating you recognize that I am dedicated to “making decisions that benefit our community as a whole,” and you hope I’ll be moved to do the right thing. You can rest very easy, as you’re correct. I do base all of my decisions on what I think will benefit our community as a whole, and I will be moved to do the right thing. For that reason, if the proposed changes the City has made to the Technical Manual will not—in the opinion of City staff—alleviate the flooding that our current residents are experiencing, I will be in favor of the 90-day pause on new infill lot building until those changes are implemented.
If you do not think this is good for the community as a whole, ask yourself this question: “How good is it for future building, growth, and commercial development if our City earns a reputation of flooding due to poor building practices and outdated stormwater regulations?” I would gather that the long-term repercussions of such a reputation is what you, as the HBA, should be focused on, rather than a motion that would impart a 90-day pause in order to protect the current stakeholders of our great City—the residents.
Thank you for your engagement.
The Note by the HBA’s Annamaria Long:
In an email Monday evening, HBA Executive Officer Annamaria Long disputed Pontieri’s claim of “64 applications for building residential permits waiting to be issued for infill lots.” In the past 90 days, Long wrote, “permits were issued for 357 SFR (single family residential) homes, the majority of those being infill lots.” The monthly average has been 429 in 2023, and 492 in 2022, Long wrote.
Long noted: “For ease, we will utilize the most recent data – 357 single family residential units for the sake of the following calculations: According to The National Association of Home Builders Local Impact Report, those 357 homes will generate $72.5 million in local income, including local business owner revenues of $21.5 million, support 1210 jobs, and $51 million in local wages and salaries. Those 357 homes will also generate the collection of $13.3 million in local taxes and fees.”
Long also provided a timeline of the HBA’s collaboration with the city’s Stormwater Department on the Technical Manual over the last six months. The timeline Long provided goes as follows:
May 23rd – Construction Forum at City Hall, at the request of the Flagler HBA
September 19th – Stormwater Roundtable at Stormwater Department at the request of the Flagler HBA
November 8th – Review of proposed Technical Manual changes during HBA Government Affairs meeting
December 21st – Review of Draft Technical Manual Changes
“At the meetings pertaining to the Technical Manual, we provided The Stormwater Department with our verbal feedback and input and were told it would all be taken into consideration,” Long wrote.
