Before the board voted on the annexation challenge, Commissioner Dance projected photographs onto the chamber screens that stopped the room: images taken by a Bulow Ruins State Park ranger showing the headwaters of Bulow Creek with water so clear it resembled a natural spring, and a second photo showing an active osprey nest nearby.
“I think we’d be naive to not think that taking 164 action doesn’t affect the negotiations that we have worked out with the developer,” Dance told the board, referencing the three-year commitment to preserve 150 acres near the creek headwaters. “This is what we are jeopardizing, in my opinion. And we’ve worked too hard to get to this point.” He said the development plan, as it stands, pushes the nearest boundary of construction roughly 2,000 feet away from the creek, protecting the most sensitive land closest to the headwaters.
Public comment drew a diverse and passionate crowd. John Tanner, representing the nonprofit Preserve Flagler Beach and Bulow Creek, Inc., gave one of the most pointed arguments of the day. “These people bought this property believing it was county. They have no voice in it at all,” he said. “There is no petition signed by the property owners. It’s an illegal annexation. They can go back and do it right.” Flagler Beach resident Sandra Neetubic told commissioners she lives near Veranda Bay and is a direct victim of its development, adding that she does not trust the developer’s commitments.
Developer attorney Michael Cimento argued the opposite — that the settlement agreement was always intended to end all disputes related to Veranda Bay, and that pursuing a 164 challenge was a “last-ditch effort” with no real upside. Flagler Beach resident Jay Gardner noted that none of the 121 lot owners whose signatures are at issue were present to object, suggesting the community is not as upset as critics claim.
Outgoing Flagler Beach City Commissioner Rick Bellhuemer, who said he would leave his seat later that week, warned that removing Veranda Bay from the annexation would cost Flagler Beach approximately $800,000 per year in ad valorem tax revenue at build-out, putting the city’s finances in a worse position. County Commission District 2 candidate Raymond Royer countered that if the developer had tried to gather individual signatures and failed, the community deserved to know that — calling the process a potential “bait and switch.”
In the most heavily debated item of the day, the Flagler County Commission voted 4-1 not to open a second round of Chapter 164 conflict resolution proceedings against the City of Flagler Beach over its annexation of the Veranda Bay development. The decision came after a lengthy legal briefing that revealed the annexation rests on untested legal ground that no Florida court has ever ruled on.
At the heart of the dispute is a question about Florida’s voluntary annexation law, Chapter 171, which states that every property owner in an area being annexed must sign the petition. Flagler Beach and developer Ken Belchi argue that a clause buried in Veranda Bay’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions gave the developer the right to pursue annexation without gathering individual signatures from the more than 121 lot owners, because those buyers accepted the covenant when they signed their purchase deeds.
The County Attorney made a remarkable admission during the meeting. “This was the first time I ever saw an application for annexation that was for a platted community that had already sold its individual lots to third parties,” he said, adding that the question of whether covenant language can substitute for individual signatures has never been litigated in a Florida court. He described it as a “novel question of law” — meaning there is no binding case law that clearly decides who is right.
Flagler Beach City Attorney Drew Smith appeared in person to defend the city’s position. He told the board that the moment lot owners signed their deeds, they transferred the annexation decision-making authority to the developer under the terms of the covenant. “It’s developer’s signature that controls,” Smith said. He also confirmed that if there were a legal challenge, it would be Flagler Beach — not Flagler County — that would bear the burden of defending the annexation in court.
A motion to not move forward with the Chapter 164 conflict resolution procedure was made by Commissioner Hansen and seconded by Commissioner Dance. Roll call: Commissioner Hansen — yes. Commissioner Richardson — yes. Commissioner Dance — yes. Chair Pennington — no. Commissioner Carney — no. The motion passed 4-1. Pennington and Carney were the dissenting votes, meaning both would have supported challenging the annexation.
After closing the door on a direct legal challenge to the Flagler Beach annexation, the Flagler County Commission opened a different one: it voted unanimously to ask the Florida Attorney General’s office for a legal opinion on whether covenant language in a developer’s deed restrictions can legally substitute for individual property owner signatures on a voluntary annexation petition.
Commissioner Carney made the motion. Commissioner Hansen seconded it. The board voted by voice — all in favor, none opposed. The motion passed unanimously. County Attorney Hadid said he would frame the question as one of general application statewide, with no specific mention of Veranda Bay or Flagler Beach, so that any opinion that comes back would serve as guidance for counties and cities across Florida. “It would be for the greater good of the state, period,” Hadid said.
Hadid cautioned the board that an Attorney General opinion is not legally binding on any court, city, or county — it is only persuasive authority. He also said the opinion could take months to arrive, and the AG’s office has the power to decline to answer. However, he noted that because this is a novel, unsettled area of law, the question is likely to draw a response. He described it as the first time in nearly 30 years of reviewing annexations that he had encountered a petition for a platted community whose lots had already been sold to individual owners.
Chair Pennington said she wanted the opinion regardless of the annexation vote outcome, partly so that Veranda Bay lot owners who feel disenfranchised have something in writing to reference if they choose to pursue their own legal options. She noted that the county has successfully used Attorney General opinions in the past — including one that confirmed the county could legally purchase fire trucks using infrastructure surtax funds.
To close the meeting, the board quickly and unanimously agreed to sign a letter of support for the City of Palm Coast’s grant application to Lowe’s for the restoration of Fire Station 22, the oldest building in Palm Coast. The station, built in 1977 at 307 Palm Coast Parkway NW, is being proposed for conversion into a fire service museum, historical exhibit space, and community gathering center in partnership with the Palm Coast Historical Society. The chair signed the letter without objection on the spot, and the meeting was adjourned.
