Snubbing near-unanimous public opposition just as it had snubbed it when approving a mammoth 6,100-home development last month, the Bunnell City Commission on Monday approved on a historic 4-1 vote the first reading of an ordinance that will rezone 1,259 acres just east and south of the city’s core from agricultural to industrial, including heavy industrial, in what could potentially change the complexion of the city. Commissioner John Rogers was the lone dissenter.
Commissioner David Atkinson supported the rezoning because it would bring “new economic opportunities for the city of Bunnell by diversifying the commercial and industrial base of our city.”
Commissioner John Rogers spoke for the opposition. “I stand with the majority of the people, but I’m in the minority,” Rogers said. “I’m not against industry. We do need jobs. But the fact of the matter is, it looks like a garbage transfer station is coming because I couldn’t get the verbiage put in there, but I personally asked for it. And there’s really no end user identified either.”
In May Bunnell’s planning board had recommended approval of rezoning what at the time was nearly 1,900 acres. The public backlash led the property owners to lower the request and add restrictions, including on landfills, fuel farms or certain chemical plants. The owners also pledge not to provide affordable housing under the Live Local Act, which can otherwise override most local land use regulations.
The ordinance approved Monday would rezone 639 acres to heavy industrial and heavy industrial and 620 acres proposed to be light industrial. There is currently no heavy industrial zoning in Bunnell.
The seven parcels that make up the land belong in various shares to a group of local families who go by Brown & Johnston & Joly & Durshimer in city documents and on the property appraiser’s site. They include Albert and Suzanne Johnston, the former tax collector, Joy Allen Lands, owned by Lynn Lafferty, a member of Bunnell’s planning board, Arthur Durshimer, Georgia Dursheimer Thibodeaux, Violet Dursheimer, Steven Durshimer, and Nell and James Brown Sr., according to property appraiser records.
The acreage stretches north to south in an Illinois-shaped land mass west of U.S. 1, north of County Road 304, east of Old Haw Creek Road and southeast of State Road 11, with near proximity to State Road 100 and I-95. There are no residential shared lots on the border of the industrial property, with one exception, where the buffer will be widened to 200 feet, from 100.
“So we’re not talking about a project site for industrial that’s located on some rural roads that nobody even goes on, that don’t have any importance from a regional perspective or local perspective or state perspective,” Tara Tedrow, the attorney representing the landowners, told the commission. “These are important transportation networks for the state of Florida. It is a high priority network of facilities important to the state’s overall economy and mobility.”
There are still no revelations about what the site will be used for, though Rogers has suspicions–and fears–that he made clear at the meeting when he said that a mortgage holder on the property is Lake Environmental Resources, a Lake County company that specializes in construction and demolition debris.
The owner of Lake Environmental Resources is Richard Bazinet of North Bay Ropad in Mount Dora, according to the Florida Division of Corporations.
On May 13, Lafferty, one of the landowners, incorporated a company called Chat-A-Who-Che LLC. On May 23, Chat-A-Who-Che signed a $2.85 million mortgage with Bazinet on the acreage in question.
The mortgage was unearthed by Allison Nobles, who spoke to the commission and won its approval to place the mortgage in the record. It’s a clear signal of a pending land deal, not long-term ownership,” she said.
Rogers wanted a restriction on transfer stations on the rezoned property–meaning that there would be a ban on transferring garbage or construction waste from trains to trucks there. Tedrow would not concede before talking to her client. Young quickly jumped in to oppose such a restriction. No other commissioner lent Rogers support.
While not disclosing what the uses will be, Tedrow said of the property that “we estimate that probably half of it becomes developable at the end of the day,” or 13 million square feet of use out of the 27 million available. But “permitting alone could take one to three years,” she said.
Some of her pitch to the commission had nothing to do with land use or the residents’ concerns and everything to do with economic development and tax policy tailored to the city’s long-term plan for itself: “Goal nine from your comp plan,” she said of the city’s comprehensive plan, the blueprint for long-term growth management, “is to promote economic development, to provide a variety of economic opportunities create a sustainable future and encourage a positive business climate.”
Numerous residents spoke in opposition to the rezoning as if in a reprise from the heavily attended meetings on the approval of the 6,100-home Haw Creek Rreserve development.
“This is not just a land use change. It is a decision that will shape our community’s identity and environment for generations,” Robin Jones said.
“Our children and grandchildren will live with the consequences of tonight’s decision for decades,” Lila Pontius said. “The proposal before you to rezone for a massive industrial park places heavy industry up against our neighborhoods, our wells, our schools, our churches and our businesses. This is not just a rezoning request, it’s a decision that will change the very character and livability of our community forever.” She added, “What troubles me most is we don’t know what this project will mean for our water, air health or our property values.”
“This is insanity,” Shelley Bradley said. “Drop the amount down, ask them to come back with an actual plan. You know, they know who they’re getting in there, who they want to sell to. Don’t let them do this.”
Then as now, the commission listened, gave its rationales, and moved ahead with approving the requests, dismissing fears that the proposals would alter the face of Bunnell, or at least weighing the proposals’ presumed jobs and economic activity ahead of the city’s character.
There was respect for the land owners and for future growth, but skepticism about the particulars of the proposal and its “lack a whole lot of detail,” as one speaker put it.
“Trust us” was not enough reassurance for the speakers.
Commissioner Dean Sechrist countered “people saying that this development and several others will change the character and the appearance of the city of Bunnell,” in his words, citing the transformation of agricultural land to industrial land. He then said that the rezoning will reduce agricultural acreage from 93 percent of the city to 90 percent. “what a horror,” he said sarcastically. “90% is agriculture and or conservation. I think that’s a pretty rural community.”
Of course, Sechrist was being patently disingenuous. Bunnell is 93 percent agricultural (if his ratio is correct: it was not verified) only because two decades ago the city went on a rather absurd pre-emptive annexation spree westward–pre-emptive against Palm Coast, which had carried out an annexation spree that nearly doubled its size, to 95 square miles.
Bunnell went from a city of 4 square miles to a city of 136 square miles, and has since added a few more acres. All of the acreage was agricultural, much of it uninhabited, or very sparsely so. It sprawls far west and south of the city proper, and includes vast lands in agricultural production. But the northern segments of the acreage of the parcel being rezoned parallel the city’s old boundaries, west of U.S. 1, and its urban core. The industrialization of that area will unquestionably change the character of Bunnell.
Sechrist went further, minimizing concerns about the rezoned land being used for chemical plants. “The standard for chemicals that were presented tonight, you wouldn’t be able to build a hardware store because they have chemicals. You wouldn’t be able to build a grocery store because they have chemicals,” he said, in essence making what amounts to an inaccurate comparison between a bottle of bleach sold at the local grocery store and the plant that manufactures the bleach.
The rezoning is contingent on prohibiting storing or producing certain chemicals, but it’s a short list (vinyl chloride, benzene, 13-butadiene chromium, and mercury). A resident who addressed the commission made the point: “What has been presented by the applicant does not do enough to protect this community and their own binding conditions,” Savannah Brinkworth said. “It is a partial prohibition rent to sound protective while leaving large loopholes. And the list itself is incomplete. The most dangerous modern contaminants are not mentioned at all, PFAS, the Forever chemicals.” (PFAS is the acronym for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.) She named many more.
Sechrist was on stronger grounds when he spoke of the value of the railroad, if with incorrect terminology. “The greatest asset that the city of Bunnell has, natural asset, is the railroad.” (It is not a natural asset. It is a private transportation corridor.) “The railroad goes through Bunnell and never stops. There’s nothing for it to stop for. We need to change that.”
Rogers would not be opposed to a train stop (he had been part of the celebration a decade and a half ago in Bunnell that sought to win an Amtrak stop in town, before Sechrist moved in). He had other concerns. “We’re changing the map of this city for an unknown future,” he said. “Progress, real progress, is measured as reasonable and compatible. This is not compatible. That’s why I’m not going to support it. It’s not compatible. There’s no other industrial park around like this.”
Young motioned for approval, seconded by Sechrist and joined by Atkinson and Mayor Catherine Robinson for the majority. A second and final reading of the ordinance, with a few amendments specifying some prohibited uses on the land, is expected on Oct. 6.
Jim says
Clearly those half wits need to go. You are representatives not royalty.
Really annoyed says
This shows that this council doesn’t listen or care what their residents feel about this disastrous outcome will be! They do care how much greedy money is made under the table to fill their fat pockets! Guaranteed these greedy members will not be living here after they start making Bunnell a sinkhole!
Janene Neal says
For those that approved this, you are obviously not from here. And Lafferty, who is…you should be ashamed of yourself! Just disgusting! This is not creating jobs or for the betterment of the community, Bunnell or Flagler. All this is…is Greed…just greed. Disgusting!