• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Grayton Girl

Beach Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
361
299
Sowal
If you live on or care about any Scenic Corridor in South Walton County, you need to be concerned about the proposed comp plan/land use changes that will be heard tomorrow (Wed., Aug. 25th) at the Planning Commission meeting.

Sowal Scenic Corridors: all of Hwy. 30A, all of the roads connecting Hwy. 98 to Hwy 30A (395, 283, 83, 393), the road leading into Grayton from 30A (DeFuniak St.), the road leading into Blue Mountain Beach from 30A, the road going to Point Washington from 98 (395 North).

As the proposed language stands, ANY piece of property abutting ANY intersection on a Scenic Corridor will have the opportunity to apply to convert to a new category called "Neighborhood Commercial," which allows commercial uses as intense as restaurants and 25-room hotels. Without this new proposed language, such a conversion would not be an option for any property in the Residential Preservation category.

Changes will be granted on a "case by case" basis.

Furthermore, outdoor music ?may be allowed? in this Neighborhood Commercial designation.

This proposed change is far-reaching and will have major implications on future development of South Walton.

Think about it - every single intersection along 30A, every intersection in Grayton Beach on DeFuniak Street, and every intersection on Hwy. 395 North will now have the possibility of being converted to "neighborhood commercial."

This certainly isn't neighborhood friendly and will do nothing but introduce new conflicts between neighbors and instability in our historic and existing residential neighborhoods.

If you are concerned about these potential changes, you should attend the meeting tomorrow at the Courthouse Annex at 5 p.m. If you would like to read my letter to the planning commission, please pm me and I will be happy to forward it to you.
 

scooterbug44

SoWal Expert
May 8, 2007
16,732
3,330
Sowal
I don't mind the change (as I think many of those intersections already have commercial on them), but I think part of it should be requiring AMPLE parking for any business, increased setbacks that include things like dumpsters and driveways, and landscaping to reduce their impact.

I think realistic parking requirements (not the 1 space for every 30 patrons many places seem to be able to get away with) and more space between commercial and residential would solve most of the issues.
 
I don't mind the change (as I think many of those intersections already have commercial on them), but I think part of it should be requiring AMPLE parking for any business, increased setbacks that include things like dumpsters and driveways, and landscaping to reduce their impact.

I think realistic parking requirements (not the 1 space for every 30 patrons many places seem to be able to get away with) and more space between commercial and residential would solve most of the issues.


You are definitely on the right track. Property owners should not be unreasonably restricted from using their property as they see fit. But after they decide what they want to do they should meet requirements to insure that their use of the property does not negatively impact their neighbors rights to enjoy their property.
 

John R

needs to get out more
Dec 31, 2005
6,777
819
Conflictinator
You are definitely on the right track. Property owners should not be unreasonably restricted from using their property as they see fit. But after they decide what they want to do they should meet requirements to insure that their use of the property does not negatively impact their neighbors rights to enjoy their property.

But if they meet the requirements, and still negatively impact their neighbors, what then?
 
" ...they should meet requirements to insure that their use of the property does not negatively impact their neighbors rights to enjoy their property. "

So which way would you have it?


Requirements: parking, setback lines, building codes, land use codes.

If they meet the requirements they should be allowed to proceed.

If commercial is allowed and they meet the requirements then their development may "negatively" impact your enjoyment of yor property. But if they have met the requirements of law you are going to have to get over it. Mere distaste or personal preference is not a reasonable reason to block development.

I should have said "negatively impact their neighbors reasonable, legal right to enjoy their property."
 

MommaMia

Beach Lover
Apr 15, 2009
141
59
This sweeping change is a throwback

As a former planning commissioner in a large city, I fear these sweeping change will negatively impact 30A more than large blue signs-- more than anything else the county has done in the last ten years. Commercial on every corner violates every good planning principle developed over the last several years. There is a reason the politicians threw out Pat Blackshear -- and this re-write is just the beginning.
 

wrobert

Beach Fanatic
Nov 21, 2007
4,134
575
61
DeFuniak Springs
www.defuniaksprings.com
As a former planning commissioner in a large city, I fear these sweeping change will negatively impact 30A more than large blue signs-- more than anything else the county has done in the last ten years. Commercial on every corner violates every good planning principle developed over the last several years. There is a reason the politicians threw out Pat Blackshear -- and this re-write is just the beginning.


And you believe that her retirement is linked to this?
 

MommaMia

Beach Lover
Apr 15, 2009
141
59
Changes

And you believe that her retirement is linked to this?

The plan that "Blackshear's staff" had been developing over the past couple of years would have allowed commercial in designated nodes so that traffic could be funneled along feeder routes. It discouraged "strip zoning" -- a device which creates more traffic and makes land which backs up to these strip areas harder to develop as residential (because no one likes to live behind commercial).

As now proposed, land owners fronting a major feeder will be rewarded, and those landowners behind them will be de-valued.

This post is not an attempt to beat a dead horse and is not about Pat Blackshear's "retirement." I have no facts about that. However, I do know what kind of land use plan was in the works, and this change is a dramatic shift away from that.

Zoning on a "case-by-case" basis is a throwback to how Walton County was developed in the past. I'm sad we're turning back there again.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter