- January 10, 2026
A Bunnell resident has filed a case in court against the City of Bunnell over its approval of a 1,200-acre industrial park rezoning.
Bunnell resident Chelsea Herbert, represented by attorney David A. Theriaque has filed a petition asking the Flagler County Circuit Court to review the rezoning approval of the development known as US 1 Park. Herbert and her attorney, who could not be reached in time for the publication of this article, filed the case on Jan. 7.
The lawsuit alleges that Bunnell’s decision “departed from the essential requirements of law” and “is not supported by competent substantial evidence.” Herbert and her attorney are requesting the court void the rezoning.
The petition states the city’s approval departed from essential requirements because “the approval constitutes impermissible conditional zoning,” the approval does not comply with Bunnell’s land use regulations and is not supported by “competent substantial evidence.”
The property is 1,259 acres of undeveloped land east of Old Haw Creek Road and west of Highway U.S. 1. The applicant received approval from Bunnell to rezone the land to both Light and Heavy Industrial.
That Light Industrial allows for a mixture of businesses from cold storage, retail and wholesale businesses to include industrial equipment, electronic equipment assembly, auto detailing and adult entertainment businesses according to Bunnell’s land development code.
Approved Heavy Industrial uses include solid waste management facilities, junk yards, large-scale manufacturing businesses, chemical production plants, boat building, truck and freight terminals and truck scales, and more.
On Dec. 8, the Bunnell City Commission voted 3-2 to approve the developer’s future land use and rezoning application. The application did not include any specific uses for the 1,200 acres.
The current application is a reduction from the originally proposed 1,842 acres and the developer has agreed to self-imposed conditions of approval, according to the city’s website. Those conditions include “including limited use of processing and large quantity bulk storage of certain chemicals, prohibition of landfills and fuel farms from within the project area.”
According to a city document for US 1 Park titled “Rezoning Narrative Justification Statement,” the zoning was suitable for the land because “there are existing properties in the City with an Industrial FLU which are adjacent to County and City properties that have future land use designations of residential (in some instances, very dense residential) and ag [agriculture].”
Herbert’s petition claims her property will “be substantially affected” by the city’s decision, as her property is one of the residential properties located near the US 1 Park property.
This is a developing story.
