Flagler Beach’s proposed annexation of Veranda Bay, the planned 2,400-home development along John Anderson Highway, is facing yet more obstacles in addition to an opposition group’s threat to sue. State agencies tasked by law with reviewing the city’s planned amendment to its land-use rules to accommodate the development have raised objections, citing a lack of data.
Flagler County is echoing some of the criticism–not because the county wants to stop the annexation. It does not. But because it is raising cautions about what County Attorney Al Hadeed is calling a “black hole” of information.
Flagler Beach is in the midst of complicated regulatory steps to annex the 900 acres of Veranda Bay. One of those steps is an amendment to the city’s so-called Comprehensive Plan. The comp plan, for short, is every local government’s blueprint for long-term development. Comp plans are enormous documents developed with care and deliberation only every so many years. Palm Coast just updated its own plan. Governments are expected to respect their plans, or else amend them when faced with what they consider to be an allowable change, like a development–as was the case with Veranda Bay.
But a comp plan amendment must be transmitted to state agencies for review. Flagler Beach approved its comp plan amendment on first reading in late October and transmitted the amendment to state agencies, as required. (See: “‘Significant Reservations’ About Approving 2,735 Homes at Veranda Bay as Development Advances on 4-1 Vote.”)
The response was not what the city wanted to hear.
“All of them, every one of them questioned what the city was doing because they had not submitted data and analysis or plans about how they were going to handle that urban area,” Hadeed said, summarizing the response to Flagler County commissioners earlier this week. “So in the land use planning process, it’s like a black hole because they have not addressed it. That includes the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,” and the Department of Commerce. “There’s no planning that we’ve seen, nothing that we’ve seen–how are they going to provide the services?”
The city was supposed to provide a feasibility study to the county. “They have not furnished that study,” Hadeed said. “The feasibility study would likely, or should have addressed these kinds of issues. So there is a bit of a planning gap. Now, is it for us to tell them–Look, you’re not doing good planning? All we can do is provide our best advice. They are free to make their decision, and they have to live by the consequences of those decisions.”
The developer is not involved at that point. The transmittals are strictly between city and state. The Florida Department of Commerce sent the objections to the city on Dec. 6. The proposed amendment, the state’s Bureau of Community Planning and Growth found, is “not supported with adequate data and analysis” showing that public facility improvements have been identified and included in the comprehensive plan. “The amendment is not based upon surveys studies and data regarding the amendment site, including the availability of order supplies public facilities, transportation, infrastructure and services as required” by law, the bureau found.
More specifically, the state found that the plan does not have “accurate data and analysis of how stormwater flows will affect the proposed development.” It does not adequately identify improvements necessary to the city’s drinkable water. It does not “address current or future capacity for the School District” to accommodate new inflows of students. It does not “adequately identify all potentially impacted roadways” with proper analysis and data, or what improvements may be necessary to maintain road-quality standards.
The state has no outright enforcement mechanism. It merely makes recommendations. It did so in its response, urging the city to address the lack of data before it approves the comprehensive plan in a final reading of the ordinance, as the City Commission is expected to do in January.
The county has had its own concerns, focused on two matters. The first is the protection of the headwaters of Bulow Creek. The county, led by Commission Chair Andy Dance, has repeatedly urged the city top ensure that protection is written into future plans, because, as Dance put it, the government gets only one shot at getting it right. The second matter has been the ownership of John Anderson Highway, which cleaves Veranda Bay, The county would prefer that the city take ownership. The city has so far declined. The enclave issue that recently surfaced is not of concern to the county, in the sense that the county will work with the city to resolve it. But the other issues linger. Paired with the state’s response, the county is voicing concerns.
“In the various comments you’ve made to us over a period of time now,” Hadeed told county commissioners, “you’ve been concerned about the accountability of this project relative to good growth management principles. I think that’s a good summary, like an umbrella over all of it.” He cited Bulow Creek and the rules the city would have to abide by–rules the county conveyed to the city. “If they do this, it will help protect Bulow Creek. But to this point in time, while we have been asking them to make that an express condition, just like you would in any development order–you must do A, B and C–they have not done that yet. Will they do it? I don’t know, but it’s not in the paperwork. It’s not in the plan today.”
The county has also raised more targeted questions about the development’s impact on roads beyond John Anderson Highway. But it’s not in the county administration’s purview to call Flagler Beach officials and ask them to get any of those things done, Hadeed said. That’s more of a dialogue at the official, policy-making level, between elected officials.
It’s the same issue with John Anderson Road, which the county cannot force the city to take over. “Can we compel them to do that? No, we can’t compel them do that,” Hadeed said. “I would think that good government would lead them to do it.” (The county’s list of concerns is comprehensively addressed in a Dec. 4 memo from Assistant County Attorney Sean Moylan.)
The enclave issue, in comparison, is not as complicated. There are eight parcels that would remain in the county’s jurisdiction, in the middle of the city, if annexation goes ahead. State law forbids the creation of such enclaves. The attorney representing Preserve Flagler Beach and Bulow Creek, the non-profit opposing annexation, has issues a letter to the city essentially threatening legal action if annexation proceeds. The city commission tabled the matter to study the threat and weigh its options.
The county and the city can sign a joint agreement that would circumvent the issue by forcing annexation of the parcels into the city. That appears to be the only option, if the opposition does not indemnify the city on that count.
“We are expecting that we will do that interlocal,” Hadeed said of the joint agreement, “should you annex.”
“I heard you loud and clear, Mr. Hadeed, I’m not going to take my foot off the pedal,” Commissioner Kim Carney said, echoing the words of fellow-Commissioner Leann Pennington. “I just see all kinds of problems with this, not just because I live there. It’s not good for our county. I would like to see more happening in between the two governments.”
