Flagler County votes not to pursue Chapter 164 challenge to Flagler Beach’s Veranda Bay annexation; asks county attorney to request AGO opinion

The Flagler County Board of County Commissioners voted March 9 to decline initiating conflict-resolution proceedings under the Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act (Chapter 164) to challenge Flagler Beach’s February 26 adoption of the Veranda Bay annexation. The motion not to move forward carried 4–1 after attorney briefing and an extended public-comment period.

County counsel briefed the board on the legal issues that would differentiate a Chapter 164 challenge from the earlier comprehensive-plan concerns. Counsel explained that a Chapter 164 review in this case would focus solely on the propriety of the annexation petition and whether the city and developer complied with Chapter 171’s requirement that property owners sign an annexation petition. He emphasized the question is novel in Florida and that published Attorney General opinions are persuasive but not binding on courts.

Drew Smith, Flagler Beach city attorney, told the board the city’s position is that the developer’s declaration of covenants gives the developer the right to annex and therefore satisfies the city’s process. In contrast, residents and preservation groups told commissioners the statute’s plain language requires individual petition signatures. John Tanner, representing Preserve Flagler Beach and Buttewood Creek, said, “All it says is petition… There are no signatures on the petitions,” and urged the county to require compliance with Chapter 171.

Developer representative Ken Belchi told the board he would not back out of negotiated agreements and said he would indemnify Flagler Beach for legal costs if litigation arose. Applicant counsel warned commissioners that removing the disputed lots might not stop development and could harm municipal finance; one attorney estimated a fiscal effect to the city of roughly $800,000 a year at build‑out if lots were carved out.

Commissioners weighed legal uncertainty and potential effects on an existing county-developer agreement covering contributions for John Anderson Highway. Those concerns — and counsel’s warning that a losing challenge could trigger attorney-fee exposure — informed the 4–1 vote not to pursue Chapter 164 proceedings.

The board separately approved — by motion and majority direction — asking the Florida Attorney General’s Office for an advisory opinion on whether developer covenants or declarations satisfy Chapter 171’s petition-signature requirement. Counsel told commissioners an AGO opinion would be advisory and likely not returned before March 26. The board also signaled support for a separate preservation letter regarding the Palm Coast Fire Station 20 22.

Next steps: The county attorney will file a state-request for an AGO opinion of general application on the signature question; staff will return to the board with any guidance and possible future options.