Flagler County planning board recommends approval of Plantation Bay Unit 13 PUD and preliminary plat

At a Flagler County Planning and Development Board meeting, staff recommended and the board voted to recommend approval of Applications 31-95 and 31-96 — a PUD site development plan and companion preliminary plat for Plantation Bay Section 2A/F Unit 13 — subject to the standard conditions and resolution of outstanding TRC/survey comments before the Board of County Commissioners hearing.

Planning staff presented the proposal as a 132-dwelling-unit subdivision on roughly 63.19 acres with about half the acreage proposed for residential use and the remainder for wetlands conservation and drainage. Staff described the project’s form as 33 quadplex buildings, with development standards including 0-foot interior side setbacks for attached units, 20 feet between building exteriors, a 3-story (35-foot) height limit and 3,600-square-foot lot sizes. "Application 31-95 is a request for approval of PUD site development plan and adoption of specific development standards for what's known as Plantation Bay Section 2 A.F. Unit 13," Planning staff Adam Mingle said during his presentation.

Developer representatives and the applicant’s agent said Unit 13 is being advanced now because of the planned Bay Drive extension (9A) to U.S. 1 and that the townhome product would be similar to units built in Unit 7. David Haas of ICI Homes said there is adequate capacity for water and wastewater treatment but the developer and county are monitoring water quality improvements. Haas also stated, "we pay about $5,500 per unit in impact fees," referring to current impact-fee obligations on the project.

Board and public questions focused on three recurring themes: mapping/notice, utilities and road timing. Several residents said the mailed notice and the packet map made it hard to identify their homes relative to the proposed Unit 13. Staff and the applicant displayed a larger graphic and explained that many addresses were included because of parcel boundaries and a 300-foot notification radius; staff acknowledged the county’s mailed notice does not by code require a map to be enclosed and said including clearer maps in the future could be useful.

On utilities, staff reported sewer improvements were underway and water-plant improvements were pending; the county will require extension of potable water and sanitary sewers and final plat approval only after county acceptance. On road timing, the applicant said the Bay Drive extension is a condition of the development agreement with a completion requirement noted in county documents (staff/developer cited January 2021 as the contractual completion date) and that plans had been submitted for county review with construction hoped to begin by the end of this calendar year and a roughly 12-month schedule.

Staff noted several outstanding TRC and survey comments on the preliminary plat largely involving scrivener or survey-measure issues; those must be resolved before the November Board of County Commissioners hearing or the county may seek a continuance. The board’s motions to recommend approval incorporated staff’s listed conditions; a motion to approve was seconded, the chair called the question and the motion carried.

The board also heard a brief staff announcement that an appeal related to the Hammock Harbor development and an anticipated variance appeal had been filed and will proceed to the Board of County Commissioners. Board members closed the meeting after reiterating that neighborhood meetings and clearer mapping in notices could improve public outreach for large projects.

The board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action; the applicant and staff expect the County Commission to consider the item in November, subject to TRC items being addressed beforehand.