Colossal 6,000-Home Plan in Bunnell is Now 8,000 Homes, and Developer Wants to Cut Open Space by 10%

The Preserve at Haw Creek is asking to preserve less open space and build more homes.

Last May the Bunnell City Commission approved a proposal to amend its comprehensive plan–its blueprint for long-term growth–to accommodate a nearly 2,800-acre proposed development of some 6,000 dwellings west of the city. It would be the single-largest development in Flagler County, and would quintuple the size of Bunnell by population. (See: “Bunnell Approves Plan That Would Add 6,000 Homes, a Town Center, and Increase City’s Population Fivefold.”)




There was no doubt about the projected number of homes, because Chad Grimm of Northeast Florida Developers, the company proposing to build what’s known as The Reserve at Haw Creek, had been asked specifically by a commissioner how many would be built. “We’re anticipating between five to 6,000 homes in household–well, units,” Grimm said. “That also would include rental, attached housing and some condos as well. So five to six thousand housing units, the number of homes would be less than that.”

But according to the developer’s rezoning application, the number of units is now “6,000-8,000,” and the developer is seeking to lower the required ratio of open space from 60 percent to 50 percent. Under city code, 20 percent of the 60 percent has to be reserved for common open space, so that 20 percent would be reduced as well.

The original plan for The Reserve has not sat well with Bunnell residents. The proposal to cut open space by 10 percent drew sharp opposition when the city’s planning board heard the matter in November, as residents raised concerns about flooding, too much concrete and too many homes.

The planning board, behind the cogently and systematically argued points of Lynn Lafferty, one of the board members, unanimously rejected the developer’s application for the variance that would have allowed the decrease in open space. The rejected was a signal that the city was becoming responsive to its residents’ restiveness about the project. The unanimous rejection was a signal to the City Commission that the city administration had also noted in its analysis: there’s no justifiable reason for the variance, nor would rejecting it cause the developer harm.




The developer has appealed the decision to the Bunnell City Commission, which until now has been an ardent, uncritical supporter of the plan. The commission hears that appeal on Monday.

It will also hear from what is expected to be a large number of residents who will ask it to uphold the planning board’s unanimous vote.

The Reserve at Haw Creek is a so-called planned unit development, or PUD. A PUD grants authority to a local government overseeing the development to impose controls and conditions on the development, which must also abide by city code. The Reserve would be a master planned mixed-use community of single-family homes, condos, apartments, retail-commercial space, light industrial manufacturing, emergency support services, parks and recreation, and conservation. The community would include some affordable housing in the mix.

A Town Center-like village center is proposed in the eastern portion of The Reserve, which would also be its densest portion. That’s where the developer wants to apply the 10 percent reduction–at least in the way the proposal was submitted to the planning board. But the lower ratio would allow that entitlement throughout the development.




Included in the reduced, 50 percent open space, the developer is including the rights of way occupied by high-voltage transmission lines, along with ponds and other rights of way. That may not go with the spirit of open space: “No one’s going to walk their dog under that, I wouldn’t think. I wouldn’t want to live next to it, either, by the way,” Lafferty said. The inclusion of high-power lines’ rights of way’s as open spaces was one of the reasons Lafferty was dubious about the variance application.

The site includes 1,200 acres of wetlands, a portion of which will be impacted by the development, and mitigated–meaning that the developer will buy equivalent wetlands for preservation elsewhere, through a wetlands bank.

“A reduction of this just by 10 percent would allow that higher intensity to be more compatible with the downtown,” which would be the development’s “Town Center,” Grimm said. The intensity of the development gradually decreases as the development moves west. “Within each neighborhood, we’re still providing parks,” he said.

Without the 10 percent, he said, “it makes the application of this development a lot more challenging,” because it would reduce the development by 1,000 homes. The development will be paying for the roads, the infrastructure and the utilities. So it needs to reduce its financial burdens. He also argued that the city’s code is in conflict with itself: “Your comp plan asks for a town center and this urban growth and development and a transition to rural,” he said. But the open-space ratio “is totally contrary to all of that.”




But Lafferty had numerous concerns, not least among them stormwater issues. “This development does abut other neighborhoods, if you will, in downtown Bunnell,” she said, wondering how reducing open space “will impact drainage, runoff and storm storm water problems.”

The development will affect almost a dozen roadways, among them State Road 11, State Road 100, County Roads 302, 65 and 80, East and West Black Point Road, Deen Road and Franz Court.

“You can’t have a negative impact of post development to what exists there today,” Grimm said, noting that whet there is today in some places, as along Black Point Road, culverts are already too small, causing flooding. “We will be analyzing, not only from an engineering standpoint, this property,” he said, “but the entire watershed that drains into this, and so the drainage will actually improve through this development, compared to what exists there today.”

Lafferty does not oppose the development, “if done properly,” but she noted that the change would enable 25 percent more developed land than allowed by code, not just 10 percent. She did not buy the argument that it would create an “unnecessary hardship” for the developer to stick with the 60 percent requirement. Nor did city staff in its analysis of the application. The city has to balance the public’s benefits too, and she worried about granting the sort of variance that could set a precedent in the city.




“I’m not opposed to growth,” Lafferty said. “Growth is here. We’re in Flagler County. There’s a tremendous amount of growth, and we can’t deny it that that’s happening. Bunnell has the opportunity, though, to have smart growth. I think that every single municipality right now has developers wanting to take away and reduce green spaces. It’s happening in Palm Coast over and over. It’s happening in Flagler Beach right now. There’s a lot of arguing about it. Bunnell is known for being the western part of the county, for being the beautiful part the farmland, gorgeous landscape, etc. This is our identity here, and I feel like the preservation of that is important, and we have the opportunity for growing smart.”

Lafferty did not see why the variance would have to apply to the entirety of the 2,700 acres, as opposed to the one segment where the developer said the variance was especially needed–its most intense, eastern part.

The residents who addressed the planning board–a preview of what the City Commission will hear Monday evening–were largely opposed to granting the variance. Some expressed concerns with the brevity of the time they had to learn of the matter and participate. Larry Rogers said the variance is contrary to the public interest as demonstrated “by all of us here this evening, by all the controversy that’s going on about this development,” and how the 10 percent is “chipping away” at what residents are concerned about. There were also concerns about flooding, and repeated references to “the cart before the horse,” meaning that the state and the county have yet to complete their review of Bunnell’s comprehensive plan amendment–the amendment filed in May.

“I want these guys to be successful. I want them to develop their project,” Rogers said. “I just wanted to be smart. Let’s use the catch phrase that we’re all using smart sustainable development, right? And this 10 percent variance does not take us anywhere closer to smarter sustainable development.”