The opposition apparently thinks "blame and shame" arguments are a viable alternative to logic, reason, and above all, the law.
Hampton Inn Seagrove Beach on Chateau Hotel Property
- Thread starter Franny
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Met to a letter they drafted.....when they had the land use codes changed last year before announcing this project......Walton county officials should go hide for being so gullible.
It is not unusual for land use codes to change. If it was done legally and If they met the current codes I don't see a winning position for the those opposing the development. I will reiterate I don't live near the project so I remain neutral.
Last edited:
On compatability alone disregarding density, traffic congestion and storm water drain off, the project can be rejected. It does not meet the parameters established for development of the area. Strict zoning would never allow this development to take place considering the individual owned residences in the area and other factors, some of which I have mentioned. We don't have that which is a damn shame. I do not expect the BCC to reject this project even though it could easily be justified to do so and the public is heavily opposed to it. There is too much big money involved, and as much as I hate to say it, big money usually prevails over the rights and desires of the local citizenry.
If I'm reading you right, it sounds like you are saying that we would need strict zoning in order to prevent this and we don't have strict zoning. You also say it can be rejected compatibility alone. Forgive me for thinking that sounds contradictory. What provisions in the law would enable it to be rejected based on compatibility? To me it just sounds like a bunch of overly emotional and cynical woulda, coulda, shoulda talk. Yes we should have zoning, but we don't. The fact is, the law always has and always will prevail over the rights and desires of the local citizenry. Welcome to planet Earth.
The fact is Hamton is completely legit and they should be allowed to open. If people do not like the laws, change them...Dfunk does at their convenience. I am not sure if it is fact, but I understand the laws are also no drive thrus which is why we are fast foodless, Starbucks just opened with a drive thru, Mc D's is next.
I think the question is who has the power to change zoning laws. It's obvious the existing laws are not beneficial to a majority of the residents and vacationers that want less high density development. At the planning meeting many good points were brought up, not just the sentimental type. The developers were providing 1.1 parking space per room, and yet openly agreed that occupancy could reach six people per unit. There was no parking provided for employees or shop workers.
The gist of it is that the zoning laws leave far too much room for interpretations that are almost always done in favor of the developers. The traffic "buy out" boondoggle is the biggest joke of all. All a developer has to do is pay down $150 grand, and he can dump as much traffic on 30-A as he wants.
The gist of it is that the zoning laws leave far too much room for interpretations that are almost always done in favor of the developers. The traffic "buy out" boondoggle is the biggest joke of all. All a developer has to do is pay down $150 grand, and he can dump as much traffic on 30-A as he wants.
Good unambiguous zoning laws CAN be written. It happens all over the country. Zoning just seems to be a foreign concept in much of northwest Florida. It's viewed as socialism.
On the issue of parking, remember that in the fall of last year the planning department brought up a proposal to increase parking requirements for homes and businesses. It was fought tooth and nail by businesses and ended up being dropped.
Is the developer of the proposed Hampton Inn promising guests beach access? Isn't there a public beach access across the street from the Tom Thumb? And what is the argument going to be going forward? I don't think "We're better than trashy people who stay in chain hotels" is going to stand up as a legal argument.