The Bunnell City Commission this evening will consider a appeal from the developer of The Reserve at Haw Creek, the planned 6,000-to-8,000-home development west of the city, to lower Bunnell’s requirement for open space from 60 to 50 percent. The city’s planning board in November unanimously rejected the request. (See: “Colossal 6,000-Home Plan in Bunnell is Now 8,000 Homes, and Developer Wants to Cut Open Space by 10%.”)
For the commission, the appeal by Northeast Florida Developers is among a series of challenges the city faces as it contends with the largest development proposal in Flagler County’s history since ITT planned Palm Coast in the late 1960s, and for Bunnell, a proposal that would potentially multiply the city’s population sixfold, remaking its geography, its politics and its character. The effects on surrounding Flagler County and Palm Coast would not be small, either.
It is with that prospect in mind that county and state officials have been analyzing the Reserve at Haw Creek since the Bunnell City Commission first transmitted to the state and the county a proposed comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate the project. Every local government has a comprehensive plan–a binding blueprint for long-term planning. Changes to the plan must be ratified by the state.
The state replied to the Reserve at Haw Creek proposal with several objections, citing a lack of data and analysis. It was similar to the state’s response to Flagler Beach’s comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate Veranda Bay–what would , despite Veranda Bay’s 2,400 homes, be a smaller development along John Anderson Highway.
Adam Mengel, Flagler County’s growth management director, issued a 26-page letter to Bunnell last June outlining the county’s concerns with The Reserve. It is not clear, or even likely, that Bunnell’s city commissioners have seen the letter. If it is part of the record, of of commissioners’ recollections, would play a role in tonight’s decision, even if it is not directly related to the developers’ request for less open state.
But the county’s comprehensive plan calls for the county to and its cities to continue to work together to maintain a standard level of services regardless of boundaries, while enhancing quality of life and protecting the environment. That includes joint agreements to coordinate building roads and associated infrastructure across jurisdictional boundaries (an example of that is the ongoing joint county-city construction of Commerce Parkway, connecting State Road 100 east of Bunnell to U.S. 1 south of it.) In that sense, Mengel’s letter should be part of tonight’s considerations.
The goals, objectives, and policies in the county’s comprehensive plan, Mengel wrote, “are relevant to the proposed [Reserve at Haw Creek] amendment as these either pertain to development of adjacent County lands or to the County’s provision of public services to serve the Reserve at Haw Creek project.
“Of greatest concern from a land use standpoint is the County’s previous Conservation designation and the lack of a similar proposed City of Bunnell Future Land Use Map designation by the City,” Mengel wrote, despite the acknowledgement of the of the presence of significant wetlands and, “of greater concern,” of flood hazard areas and floodplain throughout the project.
“In the view of the County and as it pertains to the proposed amendment, the City should include – within the boundaries of the project – the designation of lands that are not suitable for development through the City’s Future Land Use Map designations rather than relying on a future development agreement,” Mengel wrote.
“For this reason and together with the County’s GOPs mentioned above, the County urges the City to reevaluate the entitlements that are to be provided through the adoption of the proposed amendment to the developer, its successors and assigns, so as to be limited to the physical characteristics of the underlying lands to be developed as the Reserve at Haw Creek project,” Mengel wrote.
That was before the developer raised the proposed number of dwellings from 5,000 to 6,000, as suggested to the Bunnell City Commission last May, to 6,000 to 8,000 in its most recent application for a rezoning.
The Reserve at Haw Creek is the consequence of Bunnell’s annexation almost 20 years ago of vast lands to its west and south. In early June 2006, Bunnell annexed 37,000 acres, and later that month it annexed 42,700 acres, for a total of almost 80,000 acres that had previously been designated in the county’s future land use map as agriculture and timberlands, with a maximum density of one building per five acres. At the time Bunnell officials boasted of becoming the third-largest city, by surface area. But the boast was meaningless, and a cover for what the more serious consequence: Annexation set the course for higher densities and urbanization.
County lands adjacent to the proposed development, on the north side of State Road 100, West of County Road 65, and South of County Road 80, are presently designated as Agriculture and Timberlands, Conservation, and Residential, the latter with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre. More urbanized areas would concern county residents.
There’s another problem that also arose regarding the Veranda Bay annexation: A number of enclaves – remnant parcels remaining in unincorporated Flagler County – are within the boundary of the development. State law forbids annexations that produce such enclaves. In Flagler Beach, opponents of a pending annexation of Veranda Bay are threatening to sue if annexation proceeds. It’s too late in Bunnell: annexation has been in the books since 2006. But the existence of the enclaves can be a thorn in the city’s efforts, especially if the county makes them thornier.
The enclaves are designated as Agriculture and Timberlands and Conservation. County policy also prohibits the harvesting of trees within 75 feet of water bodies such as Bulow Creek, Haw Creek and Little Haw Creek, Blackwater Branch, Sweetwater Branch and several other bodies. The comprehensive plan also calls on the county to “establish methods of protecting valuable agricultural resources to ensure that the rural history and character of the County is maintained.” Where conflicts exist between agriculture and non-agricultural lands, those conflicts are “resolved in favor of the agricultural interests” through buffering, screening and protective measures.
It’s not clear to what extent is Bunnell willing to comply. The city could legally snub the county and forge ahead with its own plans, reducing to lip service lofty assertions in the county’s comprehensive plan as this: “Flagler County and the municipalities shall continue to work together to maintain coordinated Level of Service.”
County regulations require significant acreage for open space, including for county parks (30 acres per 1,000 people), community parks (3 acres per 1,000 people), and neighborhood parks (1 acre per 1,000 people). Those requirements could also be paved over with a single vote of the Bunnell City Commission, should it start tonight by granting the developer’s wish to lower open space at the Reserve from 60 percent to 50 percent.
Billy says
Flagler county is green light for every development! It doesn’t make about flooding issues, wildlife, green spaces. Just asphalt the whole county!