- April 28, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Concerns about setbacks, fire safety, and lot size led planning board members on Feb. 8 to delay a decision on a proposal to add 1,200 homes on a 594-acre parcel of land between Old Kings Road and Interstate 95 north of Old Dixie Highway.
"Whether it is a cardiac arrest, whether it is a fall off the roof, whether it is a fire, that is very narrow space for us to have to work in."
— JERRY SMITH, fire marshal, on the proposed community's 5-foot setbacks
Flagler County Planning and Development Board member Mark Langello said the board needed more information before making a making a decision on whether to recommend that the Flagler County Commission approve a rezoning and Planned Unit Development amendment application for the development.
With issues such as fire safety and some proposed PUD changes still unresolved he said, a one-month delay made sense.
If the planning board approved the proposal in its current form, but it changed before heading to the County Commission, the commission would be placed in the position of making a decision on details that hadn't been reviewed by the planning board, he noted.
"At this point, maybe there's just too many things left on the table that aren't resolved," Langello said.
The three other board members present at the meeting — board members Michael Boyd and Timothy Conner were absent — agreed.
Different proposals for the parcel of land, now owned by Venture 8 LLC, have come before the planning board before — in 2014, and again in 2018.
The latest proposal would add single-family homes in the northern portion of the property and age-restricted 55+ homes in the southern part of the property. Water would be provided through the Florida Governmental Utility Authority.
The county's fire marshal, Jerry Smith, was concerned that the proposed development's 5-foot setbacks wouldn't allow firefighters and other emergency services staff sufficient room to maneuver between homes. The setbacks would leave a 10-food gap between houses.
"You put an AC unit in there, you put a pool pump in there, you put any type of vegetation in that area, and then you send a 6-foot-2 guy, 230 pounds — with 80 pounds of gear on and a 24 foot extension ladder — has to work in that," he said. "If you fall down in your backyard and have a heart attack, we have to find a way to get back there through this obstacle course that they are creating with this 5-foot setback."
NFPA standards recommend setbacks of 7.5 feet, he said. The fire service would support the project with 5-foot setbacks, or even less, if the developer would add a fire-suppression sprinkler system to the homes, he said. He'd also be willing to work with a 6.5-foot setback without a suppression system. But not a 5-foot setback.
"That ... is a narrow space for us to have to work in. Whether it is a cardiac arrest, whether it is a fall off the roof, whether it is a fire, that is very narrow space for us to have to work in. All we're asking from the planning board is to help and work with us to help push that space back a little bit more."
But the county has allowed 5-foot-setbacks in other communities, Langello said. He was concerned about barring the proposed development from using 5-foot setbacks after allowing them elsewhere. Board chairman Jack Corbett agreed.
"I think it's awful. I wish we could change that, but that's not our role tonight," Corbett said.
Residents and board members were also concerned that the size of some of the proposed units — 1,000 feet — was too small, and the density too high.
Board member Anthony Lombardo suggested that the developer could place the age-restricted section on the smaller proposed lots in the northern section of the development while shifting the market-rate single-family homes to larger lots in the southern portion, but Langello said the board didn't necessarily have the right to impose those conditions on the developer.
"At what point do we go to someone's property and say, 'Look, you're allowed to do this, but we're going to pull that away because it'd be better if you don't do this.' And it would be better," he said. "At what point do you start taking their rights away? And then we're treating that applicant different that somebody else."
Eric Morrisette, of developer Kolter Group, said it's not feasible for the developer to change the proposed 55+ community's density because doing so would mean reducing the amenities offered at the development.
"You have this little magic number, where it's from 700, 750 houses up to about 1,000, where you can actually fund all of the amenities ... at a reasonable per cost per homeowner," he said. "It's a sweet spot that really drove where the active development community was going to go."
The proposed development will return to the planning board on March 8.
