Grayton Motor Lodge

[Jimmy T]

I have a couple of issues with this project:
1. Infrastructure. Grayton has no public restroom and limited bicycle parking. Both need to be addressed before approving developments like this.
2. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood.
3. The project site is mostly a wetland with a creek that feeds alligator lake. The pollution from a large development like this will damage the environment.

 

[Dawn]

I have a couple of issues with this project:
1. Infrastructure. Grayton has no public restroom and limited bicycle parking. Both need to be addressed before approving developments like this.
2. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood.
3. The project site is mostly a wetland with a creek that feeds alligator lake. The pollution from a large development like this will damage the environment.

Grayton Grand was going to be a big fight because of wetlands and bordering the state park. If this new project has wetlands and borders state forest or a coastal dune lake it will be a battle.

 

[LarsAtTheBeach]

I have a couple of issues with this project:
1. Infrastructure. Grayton has no public restroom and limited bicycle parking. Both need to be addressed before approving developments like this.
2. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood.
3. The project site is mostly a wetland with a creek that feeds alligator lake. The pollution from a large development like this will damage the environment.

#1 is as valid of a point today as it was 10-20 years ago.
#2 I disagree as most of that “neighborhood” is commercial.
#3 is another valid point and storm water runoff is addressed as part of any new development, including a single family home.

 

[LarsAtTheBeach]

Grayton Grand was going to be a big fight because of wetlands and bordering the state park. If this new project has wetlands and borders state forest or a coastal dune lake it will be a battle.

And the developer made out like a bandit turning a 700K investment into a 7 million dollar sale. At the taxpayers expense.

And now the county is using the property to shuttle people to other businesses so they can prosper. At the taxpayers expense.

 

[bob1]

And the developer made out like a bandit turning a 700K investment into a 7 million dollar sale. At the taxpayers expense.

And now the county is using the property to shuttle people to other businesses so they can prosper. At the taxpayers expense.

Are you saying buying land in sensitive areas and selling to the county is a repeat scheme?

 

[Jimmy T]

#1 is as valid of a point today as it was 10-20 years ago.
#2 I disagree as most of that “neighborhood” is commercial.
#3 is another valid point and storm water runoff is addressed as part of any new development, including a single family home.

I would argue that #1 is much more valid today than it was before. The number of visitors to Grayton has increased dramatically and nothing has been done to accommodate them.

 

[LarsAtTheBeach]

Are you saying buying land in sensitive areas and selling to the county is a repeat scheme?

No I am not saying that.

 

[LarsAtTheBeach]

I would argue that #1 is much more valid today than it was before. The number of visitors to Grayton has increased dramatically and nothing has been done to accommodate them.

I can agree.

 

[ValD]

I always enjoy the "when I moved here, Grayton Beach was...". What do you think the locals might have been saying at that time? Do you think they might have looked at you as an intruder? Maybe as someone that was overcrowding their haven? I think it's interesting that it's ok when YOU move there or build there but after that... heavens no... keep them out!

 

[bob1]

What do you think the locals might have been saying at that time?

"cheers"