Lynn Haven commissioners discuss Avery Shores development order, utilities and access concerns

Lynn Haven commissioners reviewed a development order request from Miller Enterprises Inc. for the Avery Shores townhome project during a pre‑commission meeting, focusing on sewer capacity, emergency access and site constraints.

The discussion matters because the development ties into existing utility infrastructure on the city’s east side and because residents and the planning commission previously raised traffic, elevation and access concerns.

City staff said the lift station to which the project would connect (the Cashelmarra lift station) has adequate capacity for the new units, but a downstream station — Lift Station 47 at the foot of the bridge — requires upgrades for the broader service area on the east side. City attorney Cole characterized those upgrades as part of the city’s master plan and said they are not currently the developer’s responsibility. Planning staff noted the planning commission previously voted the application down 5‑2 at their meeting after residents raised concerns about traffic and the low elevation of the site.

Commissioners discussed an easement dispute that had affected a proposed emergency access point: the developer had purchased a strip of land from a Kashamara property owner to create an emergency exit for service vehicles, but the homeowners association challenged that sale. Planning staff said the parcel was returned and the proposed connection is no longer part of the project.

City staff described the proposed project as 19 duplexes (38 units). They said the units will be elevated to meet floodplain management requirements and that the ground‑level areas under the units will be limited to parking and breakaway walls rather than living space. The city confirmed the road the project would use is a county road; the county initially issued a permit, rescinded it after public objection, and — according to materials in the commission packet — intends to reissue the permit and may require roadway improvements.

Public safety infrastructure was a focal point. Water modeling showed available fire‑flow below the 1,000 gallons‑per‑minute benchmark some jurisdictions use for unprotected buildings; to address that, the commission was told the project will include a dedicated fire service connection stub for each unit and that the buildings will be sprinklered. Staff said developers will provide the service stubs at the building permit stage.

Environmental concerns were raised by commissioners: one asked about bald eagles on the site. Staff said an environmental assessment generally is required for a comprehensive plan amendment or other larger land‑use change; because the parcel already carries a high‑density land‑use designation, the application before the commission was limited to the townhomes applied for and does not currently trigger an additional large‑scale environmental review.

Commissioners also discussed the ethics and disclosure rules that govern contacts with advisory board members after those boards vote. The city attorney explained that commissioners may speak with planning commission members after a vote but must disclose any communications that could be prejudicial (a Jennings disclosure) before taking a quasi‑judicial vote if a hearing is held.

The commission did not take a final vote on the development order during the pre‑commission discussion. Staff indicated the item was expected to return on the regular meeting agenda with further materials, including engineering details and any required disclosures.

Additional details from the meeting: the planning commission had drawn public opposition at its hearing; the developer removed the contested emergency access parcel; and the city flagged Lift Station 47 for future upgrades as part of its master plan rather than as a developer condition.

The commission invited the planning commission to send a representative to the upcoming hearing so commissioners could ask about the earlier 5‑2 recommendation and better understand the planning commission’s objections.