Annexation Into Flagler Beach of 2,700-Home Development Crosses Key 1st Hurdles, With Some Public Opposition

The Flagler Beach City Commission Tuesday night substantially moved forward with the annexation of Veranda Bay, a 2,700-home development along John Anderson Highway that will double the city’s population, hugely increase its tax revenue but also likely change its identity, its politics and its center of gravity as well as the character of its unincorporated surroundings by the time it’s built out near the middle of the century.

The plan includes what will be a city within a city, with its own walkable and amenity-rich downtown that the developer likens to Winter Park and conceives as the county’s first foray into “new urbanism,” an environmentally friendly concept of development focused on a sense of community and respect for the surrounding ecology.




Tuesday’s meeting was more plodding than quixotic, however, culminating in a trio of approving votes as the clock ticked past the four-hour mark. Public concerns and some opposition emerged for the first time in the year since the city has been openly planning for–and aggressively seeking–the annexation as Tuesday’s meeting drew 85 people, filling the chamber to overflowing at the beginning of the special meeting. But by the time the floor was opened to public comment, the audience had dwindled to an exhausted few. The dissatisfaction by then was less about the proposed development than about a public silenced.

Several residents of the area neighboring the development addressed commissioners, including 17-year-old Caleb Hathaway, a senior who founded a conservation club at Flagler Palm Coast High School. Some proposed that the commissioners hold a workshop focused on public input and comment “before any major decisions can be made.” Commissioner James Sherman had made a similar proposal, and the commission agreed: that workshop is scheduled for Tuesday, September 24, at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall. It will be “heavily weighted toward public comment,” Commission Chair Scott Spradley said. It will be followed by the September 26 meeting of the commission, where the zoning portion of the annexation will get its first reading.

Meanwhile, the commission Tuesday evening approved on first reading three other components of the annexation agreement–the annexation itself, the proposed change to the comprehensive plan, which now goes to the state for ratification, and a technical amendment addressing property rights. All those items plus the rezoning would get their second and final reading at an Oct. 24 meeting, sealing the annexation.

Nothing suggested Tuesday evening that that vote is in doubt. Veranda Bay officials came to the meeting Tuesday looking to formally move the proposal forward. They got what they wanted. Some of the commissioners had a few reservations, and public concern, if judged by the size of the crowd at the beginning of the meeting, seemed quite pronounced. But it proved less so even when the few people who got to speak did so three hours later, making the Oct. 24 completion of the deal all but irrevocable.




“As far as the annexation goes, my comment is that I am not against it. I’m just against the increase in density,” said Elizabeth Hathaway, who had led opposition to the development four years ago as president of an organization called Preserve Flagler Beach and Bulow Creek. She favored returning to a maximum of 453 housing units.

“I understand maybe it’s not financially viable, but I think it’s what’s in the best interest for the city of Flagler Beach,” Hathaway said. “I think that what they’re proposing, while it may be desirable for some people, some people want that. I think the majority of people who move here don’t want that. We came here for a very specific reason, and annexing that to make it into what this utopia is, I don’t think is the city of Flagler Beach. And I think it’s going to change the entire dynamic of what we are known for. If we wanted that, we would go to Ponte Vedra, we’d go to Nocatee, we’d go to Miami, we go to all other places that have that. It’s right there. Move there. People move here for something different.”

Former Commissioner Ken Bryan, a resident of Palm Drive, which ends where the development begins, repeated the concerns he’d spoken of before the planning board–he and Palm Drive residents are opposed to any kind of throughway between Palm Drive and the development–but he was also concerned about the continued negligence of Palm Drive’s infrastructure, while the county is asking the city to take ownership of John Anderson Highway. There were concerns about stormwater discharges into Bulow Creek (there would be some, but under “more strict rules,” the developer’s attorney said), about the importance of an additional fire station in or near the new development, and about who will build internal roads and infrastructure (the developer will).

Strikingly, most of those who spoke were not Flagler Beach residents, but residents on the rim of the city and what would be the city once Veranda Bay is annexed. The fact could not have gone unnoticed by the city’s elected officials even as it compounded the sense of voicelessness among the opposition.

Perhaps because attrition of the audience had–intentionally or not–done its job, outright opposition to the plan was limited, as it had been when the same plan went before the city’s planning board on Sept. 3. The board recommended approval in unanimous votes. There as at the commission meeting, there was no anger, no aggression, no denunciations, as there had been against the same project more than four years ago, when it was known as The Gardens. Back then, even the city was among its opponents. From the public, there was more of a sense of resignation, the criticism focused as much on the city and a sense that the annexation proposal had been spruing up suddenly, though that’s far from the case.




After resisting the development five years ago, when it was going through regulatory approvals with county government, Flagler Beach warmed to it then aggressively courted the Veranda Bay annexation for almost a year for two reasons: as Commissioner Eric Cooley explained it earlier this year, the development will proceed regardless. It has been entitled, meaning that property rights make any opposition to development futile. The question became: what sort of development. Construction can’t be stopped. But it can be regulated, shaped, contained. Flagler Beach shouldn’t have a Palm Coast on its borders, Cooley said. As the city saw it, annexing would ensure that Veranda Bay would look more like Flagler Beach, under Flagler Beach zoning and architectural standards.

“If this gets annexed and it’s part of Flagler Beach, we would like it to look like it’s part of Flagler Beach,” Cooley said. “Our architectural standards are different, and I would like to say, higher than, say, Palm Coast’s. So we don;t want it to look like Palm Coast. We want it to look like Flagler Beach.”

In January the commission unanimously approved a letter by the mayor to Veranda Bay, all but begging the developer to annex in. The city changed its annexation rules last January to accommodate the development. Negotiations continued, the plan had its airing before the planning board, then moved to the commission Tuesday.

“This has not been a process that started last week or two weeks ago or even two months ago,” Veranda Bay developer Ken Belshe said, also noting that he’s been in the county since the 1990s, starting with the development of Palm Coast Plantation in Palm Coast. “We know that there are some concerns. I’m sure each of you have your own concerns. We would like to work through those tonight, and would like to leave here with with a vote to move this on.”

Any claim that it had been a mystery misses the mark but for one significant detail. Cooley, whose shift from cheering on the annexation in January to a more prosecutorial approach on Tuesday was odd, acknowledged that the city has been discussing the annexation for a long time, but it only received the 500-page package on the annexation on Friday. “this wasn’t something that we’ve had ample time to review,” he said. Cooley was the lone dissenter in two of the three votes on Tuesday–not because he is opposed to the annexation, but because of his disenchantment over what he saw as hurry before transparency.




The meeting otherwise followed the format of any land-use proposal, with the Lupita McClenning, the city planner, outlining the city’s analysis, followed by Michael Chiumento, the land-use attorney representing Veranda Bay, and Belshe himself. They made nearly identical presentations to the city’s planning board on Sept. 3. (See those details here: “Flagler Beach Prepares to Annex Veranda Bay, Adding 2,700 Housing Units and Doubling City’s Size by 2044.”)

McClenning said the city created a Master Plan Development District that will overlay Veranda Bay and give the city greater say on “innovative land planning and site design concepts that are intended to support quality of life,” combining quality development with environmental sensitivity. The city’s sewer plant has treatment capacity for 1 million gallons per day. It will expand to 2 million gallons as Veranda Bay builds out. (Belshe said he was skeptical that the city could handle the growth, but has come around.) Currently the city discharges its treated (or “reuse” water) into the Intracoastal, though it can be used for irrigation. State law requires cities to redirect those discharges by 2032. The city’s plan is to redirect those discharges toward irrigation in Veranda Bay.

The project will generate $41 million in development impact fees for Flagler Beach. Over 20 years, Chiumento says, the city would net $336 million in revenues, based on what the developer estimates will be $1 billion in property value. The current phase of 335 single-family homes being built will generate nearly $900,000 in school impact fees alone. So far 18 houses have been built, lowering the balance to $793,000.

Commissioners had repeated questions about the development’s demands on the city’s infrastructure, particularly its water and sewer plants and its use of recycled wastewater (“we are committed to that expansion, and as they indicated that they would not outstrip our capacity,” City Manager Dale Martin said); about the housing breakdown (1,332 condominiums, 975 single-family homes, 350 apartment units); about the density of residential areas; and about the maximum number of housing units the development would consist of: “I will make a commitment tonight that we will not exceed the 2,735,” Belshe said.

The commissioners then went through the agreement page by page–specifying that the 1,100 acres of conservation land cannot be developed, for example, and what the developer’s commitment to 40 percent of “open space” means. What it means is this: in addition to the 1,100 acres of conservation, the development will incorporate 40 percent of open space amid the houses, condos and apartments it will build. That’s what the annexation agreement requires, Chiumento said. He made it explicit: “So we’ve already got gone through the issue about 1,100 acres being conveyed to the county for open space and public use of preservation. But in addition to that 899 acres that is remaining to develop, 40 percent of that will be used as open spaces defined by your code.”

Commissioner Jane Mealy insisted on the 40 percent proportion. Vegetation buffers along Bulow Creek with remain at 75 feet, and existing buffers along John Anderson will continue to average 50 feet, though the minimum required is 25 feet.




“We’re going to commit to the 40 percent, you’re going to have this amount of property that’s going to be open space,” Belshe said. “But give us some relief from the rest of these items, so that we’re not out trying to identify every single pine tree that’s going to be removed.”

There were questions about language conflicts between the annexation agreement and city code. The annexation agreement is controlling, supplanting city code, “so that you can have the creative development that a planned developments contemplate,” Smith said. “Otherwise we might as well just do straight up zoning.”

There were more questions about buffers and setbacks. Questions occasionally got so granular as to get into permitting of special events, open houses and other such details (the development will naturally hold numerous open houses) until City Attorney Drew Smith suggested that commissioners refocus on the items at hand. “This doesn’t have to be one of those where everything is answered tonight,” Smith said. ” If there’s not a firm answer, we can continue the discussion.”

County government had its own requests, first aired at the planning board. County Attorney Al Hadeed and Assistant County Attorney Sean Moylan asked the city to consider taking ownership of John Anderson Highway. “We’re asking that as a matter of courtesy, as a matter of mutual government to the respective governments, and in respectful recognition of the partnership that we have long enjoyed with the city,” Hadeed said, before making the request sound like something the city owes the county: “I’m sure you all know that just last night, we approved three quarters of a million dollars to fund your Flagler Beach Beach Walk project. You all know that the county worked very hard for the city to secure the Army Corps project for the three and a half miles, including the required easements in the staging areas.” (The county extended the beach renourishment project the Army Corps of Engineers just completed in Flagler Beach, from its original 2.6 miles.) “We also, in order to deal with the challenge of the continuing erosion, we stepped up when the Army Corps was going to make the funding more robust, and we kicked in another three to $4 million of our funds to make that happen.”

Moments later Moylan told the commissioners that asking cities to take ownership of county roads where applicable was “somewhat of a new policy that we’re trying to push.” The request is dependent on the annexation, but not part of its regulatory steps. The city and the county will work out a separate, joint agreement that would spell out the road’s ownership transfer.