Potential Land Use Changes are Far Reaching

IMO, one does not equal the other. IMO, legitimate property rights do not include the presumption that no one else has input on, or control of, what you do with your property. This is what planning & zoning is all about. Houston, and certain parts of Alaska, are good havens for those who expect no controls at all.

When someone wants to pay a portion of my taxes and my mortgage or reimburse me for what I have already invested then they can have input into what I do with my property. Planning and zoning should be very limited and only to insure that my use does not adversely effect you. Adverse means real, measureable effects, not "I don't like the color of your house."

The height for new construction south of the bay has been limited to 50 feet for many years per county ordinance. The only exceptions I'm aware of are for projects within DRIs and for sites grandfathered for greater height, and the only instances of this I know of are in the Miramar Beach area.

Thanks Miz. I have been many years grateful that the only skyscrapers on 30A are limited to the two I believe. My point of that story was to mention the concept of wholesale zoning or wholesale land use changes as a dangerous practice. In 30A's case, it seems that some county decisions have been overturned by the courts. Now I don't know but from a frequent visitor's perspective, the county appears to be trying to change the underlying land use classification to circumvent those decisions and/or stem the potential tide of neighborhood objections to future land use change requests if this is not done. If land use is changed in a blanket fashion, neighbors will be out of luck, should they want to object or stop the commercial development. I agree that an architect office, art gallery etc., would not be offensive to me, but the permitted uses in that case should not permit also a nightclub, busy restaurant, used car lot. Permitted uses should be narrowly and specifically defined....:roll:

Thanks Miz. I have been many years grateful that the only skyscrapers on 30A are limited to the two I believe. My point of that story was to mention the concept of wholesale zoning or wholesale land use changes as a dangerous practice. In 30A's case, it seems that some county decisions have been overturned by the courts. Now I don't know but from a frequent visitor's perspective, the county appears to be trying to change the underlying land use classification to circumvent those decisions and/or stem the potential tide of neighborhood objections to future land use change requests if this is not done. If land use is changed in a blanket fashion, neighbors will be out of luck, should they want to object or stop the commercial development. I agree that an architect office, art gallery etc., would not be offensive to me, but the permitted uses in that case should not permit also a nightclub, busy restaurant, used car lot. Permitted uses should be narrowly and specifically defined....:roll:

As scooterbug has stated, regulations regarding adequate parking and realistic setback lines will solve most of these problems. If I own a 1/4 acre lot I probably cannot build a nightclub or restaurant if the codes have been written correctly.

I don't know where you live, Scooterbug44, but if you owned a house that was one lot off 30A behind one of the currently existing homes on the intersections I listed, you would probably be concerned. I imagine you would have bought and developed your residential property with the understanding that your neighbors could also build homes on the adjacent property.... and now, instead of your neighbor's home, you may have a small restaurant/eatery adjacent to your lovely house, with all the attendant noise, parking, and garbage issues. We do not need to be creating these conflicts within our well-established residential communities!

I have a house in Old Seagrove one lot off 30A. There is no way I want either of the houses next to me or across the street from there to be a commercial business of ANY kind - not a Pickets, a real estate office, a sweet little old lady that sells art, or an ice cream parlor. When we bought our house, there were houses in those locations and our expectation, based on the land use and plat, was that they would always be houses.

Did I read somewhere that the meeting for this has been changed to another date? Or did I miss it on Thursday?

As scooterbug has stated, regulations regarding adequate parking and realistic setback lines will solve most of these problems. If I own a 1/4 acre lot I probably cannot build a nightclub or restaurant if the codes have been written correctly.

Not written to offend, but "realistic" and "written correctly" are terms that, in my experience, barely exist in zoning regs

I have a house in Old Seagrove one lot off 30A. There is no way I want either of the houses next to me or across the street from there to be a commercial business of ANY kind - not a Pickets, a real estate office, a sweet little old lady that sells art, or an ice cream parlor. When we bought our house, there were houses in those locations and our expectation, based on the land use and plat, was that they would always be houses.

Did I read somewhere that the meeting for this has been changed to another date? Or did I miss it on Thursday?

Attend the SPECIAL County Commissioner's Meeting on Minday July 30th at 5PM at the Annex...there are many who are unhappy with the Planning Commissioners and the way they "passed" on many proposed changes at both of their meetings. These "passes" move on to another public hearing before the Commissioners before they are final.

As scooterbug has stated, regulations regarding adequate parking and realistic setback lines will solve most of these problems. If I own a 1/4 acre lot I probably cannot build a nightclub or restaurant if the codes have been written correctly.

I heard 1 parking spot per 30 seats...not sure if that it right. I want to know what car, van or bus is the county using for their code if this is true?

Did I read somewhere that the meeting for this has been changed to another date? Or did I miss it on Thursday?

SGB, the Planning Commission gives recommendations to the County Commission and the PC has already held its meetings. (The County's review starts next Monday.) I was at the meeting yesterday and spoke directly to the dangerous and overly broad language that is in the proposal. The response from the Planning Commission Chairman, Mr. Terrell, was that I should not worry about all of this as the Land Development Code (LDC)would tighten up the requirements for Neighborhood Commercial.

I responded to Mr. Terrell and made 2 important points: (1) once the Comprehensive Plan (CP) language, which defines the allowable locations for Neighborhood Commercial, is adopted, no language in the LDC could change that because the LDC is not allowed to conflict with the CP and (2) if the CP specifically allows 25-room hotels and restaurants with possible outdoor music in the Neighborhood Commercial category (both of which are spelled out in the proposed language of the CP), then once again, the LDC may not change this.

If the county is hell-bent on allowing additional neighborhood commercial, then the county needs to sit down and do the work with members of the communities that will be affected to determine just WHAT will be considered neighborhood commercial and just where it should be located. With the proposed language, we are truly stepping back 25 years or more to the good ole boy, case by case zoning that existed.

And for those of you who want no regulations of any type on any property that you own, I don't know what planet you are living on. Why have planning or zoning of any sort? Why not let people do whatever they want whenever they want? We are not talking about legislating the color of a house or the architectural style. We are talking basic property uses and whether it is appropriate for you, who bought land that you knew to be residential in nature, to now be able to put your restaurant/bar or 25-room hotel directly adjacent to my family's home.

Please join those who are interested in this issue next Monday, August 26, at the South County Annex. I believe the meeting is at 5:00 p.m. but you will need to check that time with the county's website.

When someone wants to pay a portion of my taxes and my mortgage or reimburse me for what I have already invested then they can have input into what I do with my property. Planning and zoning should be very limited and only to insure that my use does not adversely effect you. Adverse means real, measureable effects, not "I don't like the color of your house."

That property, which you own & in which you have already invested -- did it come with zoning or other land-use constraints when you bought it? If so, were you aware of them? Did you agree with them, or at least tacitly accept them by agreeing to buy the property with them in place? Do they still count today, can your neighbors and I count on them to tell US what you can do with your property? Would I be entitled to think that a commercial use at your property, even with some setbacks & parking provisions addressed, might be "adverse" to the residential neighborhood we thought we were buying into?

Grayton Girl, thanks for the information on the Aug. 25 planning commission meeting. I wish I had been able to attend. I did attend the Aug. 24 county commission meeting, and the commissioners voted to put off discussion of the county-sponsored large-scale map amendments to Monday, Aug. 30 at 5 p.m. The meeting is at the South Walton Annex. It was my understanding that the planning commission did not get through all of those amendments and would be continuing to review the ones that were remaining. The county commissioners assured us that all the amendments they would be looking at on Monday would be ones that had already been reviewed at the planning commission level. There have been so many county meetings in the last few weeks that it has been hard to keep up with all of them. However, I hope a good number of community members will be present on Monday.

That property, which you own & in which you have already invested -- did it come with zoning or other land-use constraints when you bought it? If so, were you aware of them? Did you agree with them, or at least tacitly accept them by agreeing to buy the property with them in place? Do they still count today, can your neighbors and I count on them to tell US what you can do with your property? Would I be entitled to think that a commercial use at your property, even with some setbacks & parking provisions addressed, might be "adverse" to the residential neighborhood we thought we were buying into?

I have no problem abiding with the laws existing when I acquired my property. And I have no problem with any change that means less restrictions but oppose any more restrictive language.
I personally prefer no more development along 30-A but that preference is simular to my preference that no mosque be built at ground zero. The property owners have a right to build regardless of what I prefer.

SGB, the Planning Commission gives recommendations to the County Commission and the PC has already held its meetings. (The County's review starts next Monday.) I was at the meeting yesterday and spoke directly to the dangerous and overly broad language that is in the proposal. The response from the Planning Commission Chairman, Mr. Terrell, was that I should not worry about all of this as the Land Development Code (LDC)would tighten up the requirements for Neighborhood Commercial.

I responded to Mr. Terrell and made 2 important points: (1) once the Comprehensive Plan (CP) language, which defines the allowable locations for Neighborhood Commercial, is adopted, no language in the LDC could change that because the LDC is not allowed to conflict with the CP and (2) if the CP specifically allows 25-room hotels and restaurants with possible outdoor music in the Neighborhood Commercial category (both of which are spelled out in the proposed language of the CP), then once again, the LDC may not change this.

If the county is hell-bent on allowing additional neighborhood commercial, then the county needs to sit down and do the work with members of the communities that will be affected to determine just WHAT will be considered neighborhood commercial and just where it should be located. With the proposed language, we are truly stepping back 25 years or more to the good ole boy, case by case zoning that existed.

And for those of you who want no regulations of any type on any property that you own, I don't know what planet you are living on. Why have planning or zoning of any sort? Why not let people do whatever they want whenever they want? We are not talking about legislating the color of a house or the architectural style. We are talking basic property uses and whether it is appropriate for you, who bought land that you knew to be residential in nature, to now be able to put your restaurant/bar or 25-room hotel directly adjacent to my family's home.

Please join those who are interested in this issue next Monday, August 26, at the South County Annex. I believe the meeting is at 5:00 p.m. but you will need to check that time with the county's website.

Grayton Girl -Thanks for the info and your input at the meeting on Thursday. Sorry I missed it. Will see you Monday.

Fascinating... I've only read the thread so far and take Grayton Girl's word for the language which disturbs me.

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

.

My question is what constitutes ANY intersection? Scooterbug took the mental drive down those roads, as they are. Imagine more intersections.

I see a huge loophole here that will change the character of the entire area. Accuse me of aruging a slippery slope but think of all of the ramifcations of more and more development. These development issues are sometimes looked at in a vacuum - single factor analysis, which is dangerous. It was a while back that the private beach issue was a red hot topic on these boards. How many 20 to 30 room hotels can exist with private beach signs?

Yes you should have control over your private property but don't come complaining after the fact you bought something that you didn't understand had restrictions attached. That goes for beachfront owners as well as speculators wanting to increase the value of their ownership. Caveat emptor

Now imagine a case by case basis. Time to put the brakes on.

rocket, that is a good question about the intersections. Technically, when any driveway intersects 30A or a feeder road, it is an intersection, and you can bet that attorneys like George R Miller will use that in their client's best interest. Look out!

My question is what constitutes ANY intersection?

Rocket136: To answer your question about what is considered an "intersection," under the proposed language, driveways intersections would not be considered "intersections."

The proposed language allows NC at intersections of arterial, collector, and local streets. The small streets that intersect 30A or DeFuniak Street, such as Live Oak St. in old Seagrove or Lydia St. in Grayton are "local" roads.

Here is the exact language in the proposal:

[FONT=&quot](A) [FONT=&quot]Location criteria:[/FONT] The intersection of arterial/collector, collector/collector, and collector/local street. However, in areas south of the Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intercoastal Waterway, NC designations shall be limited to those intersection areas described above that are within the designated Scenic Corridors. This limitation shall not prevent the designation of an existing neighborhood development as NC if such development was lawfully in operation prior to the date of adoption of this amendment and is an ongoing business.[/FONT]

Driveway intersections would not be involved.

This limitation shall not prevent the designation of an existing neighborhood development as NC if such development was lawfully in operation prior to the date of adoption of this amendment and is an ongoing business.

Doesn't Grayton have a Neighborhood Development overlay, as does Blue Mountain Beach and Pt Washington? If they do, does this mean they are exempt, or does that language mean that they may be an exception and allow commercial within the overlay, even if it doesn't meet this proposal?

So we say no new intersections or drives - I certainly think that is something an unscrupulous developer would try.

Seriously, this could all be written up in a code of less than one page.

Doesn't Grayton have a Neighborhood Development overlay, as does Blue Mountain Beach and Pt Washington? If they do, does this mean they are exempt, or does that language mean that they may be an exception and allow commercial within the overlay, even if it doesn't meet this proposal?

Grayton does NOT have a Neighborhood Plan overlay. I think that Inlet Beach and Gulf Trace have these plans, but I did not know that Blue Mountain and Point Washington have these plans as well. Do they?

My understanding is that if you have a Neighborhood Plan Overlay that has been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, then your Neighborhood Plans dictates future development.

Grayton does NOT have a Neighborhood Plan overlay. I think that Inlet Beach and Gulf Trace have these plans, but I did not know that Blue Mountain and Point Washington have these plans as well. Do they?

My understanding is that if you have a Neighborhood Plan Overlay that has been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, then your Neighborhood Plans dictates future development.

Quite a few communities have neighborhood plans now, including Gulf Trace, and there are neighborhood plans that apply to parts of the Point Washington and Blue Mountain Beach areas. However, the Inlet Beach Neighborhood Plan, the county's first, was the only one that was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.

A small part of old Pt Washington is working with Planning and Zoning for a Neighborhood Plan which will hopefully be included in the EAR. Recently, PW aquired a height restriction of 32' via an overlay.

A small part of old Pt Washington is working with Planning and Zoning for a Neighborhood Plan which will hopefully be included in the EAR. Recently, PW aquired a height restriction of 32' via an overlay.

Thanks for the clarification, I was thinking they did call that height restriction overlay a neighborhood plan.

I really thought that Grayton was working on a neighborhood plan a year ago. It came before the BCC, but I guess it didn't happen, eh?

I really thought that Grayton was working on a neighborhood plan a year ago. It came before the BCC, but I guess it didn't happen, eh?

Don't recall that, but there was a move to use the Grayton Beach noise ordinance as a model for a countywide noise ordinance about then. In 2000 an overlay plan was approved to limit the height for new construction in Grayton Beach proper, and the overlay also established some additional requirements for parking in the area.

Please email the county commissioners about this. I don?t think we want a souvenir shop or whatever business on every corner on 30A.

Scott Brannon brascott@co.walton.fl.us
Kenneth Pridgen [FONT=&quot]prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us[FONT=&quot][/FONT][/FONT]
Larry Jones [FONT=&quot]jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us[/FONT]
Sara Comander [FONT=&quot]comsara@co.walton.fl.us[/FONT]
Cecilia Jones (our District 5 commissioner) [FONT=&quot]joncecilia@co.walton.fl.us[/FONT]

Or if you?d rather call or fax them, here is a link to that info. [FONT=&quot]http://www.co.walton.fl.us/index.aspx?nid=112http://www.co.walton.fl.us/index.aspx?nid=112[/FONT]


DO Y'ALL REALIZE THAT THIS CAN CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE 30A CORRIDOR AS WE NOW KNOW IT? THIS IS A BIG DEAL, PEOPLE.


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

County Commission considers Neighborhood Commercial Tonight!

Tonight, August 30th, at 5:00 p.m. at the South County Annex on 331: The Board of County Commissioners will consider the proposed new Neighborhood Commercial changes to the Comprehensive Plan.

As the person who began this thread, I wanted to share my specific concerns with the folks on the Board.

First, here is the new category language:

[FONT=&quot]Policy L-1.4.4 Neighborhood Commercial (NC):[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The purpose of this land use category is to designate small areas in proximity to residential areas that will allow for a limited group of commercial uses to serve the needs of those residential areas. All neighborhood commercial uses must be designed in use, scale, character, and intensity to be compatible with, and to protect, the abutting and surrounding residential areas.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](A) [FONT=&quot]Location criteria:[/FONT] The intersection of arterial/collector, collector/collector, and collector/local street. However, in areas south of the Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intercoastal Waterway, NC designations shall be limited to those intersection areas described above that are within the designated Scenic Corridors. This limitation shall not prevent the designation of an existing neighborhood development as NC if such development was lawfully in operation prior to the date of adoption of this amendment and is an ongoing business.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](B) [FONT=&quot]Uses allowed:[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Allowed neighborhood scale uses: offices, professional services, storefront retail shopping, neighborhood grocery stores, limited lodging not to exceed 25 rooms, banks, bakeries, cafes and restaurants without drive-thru facilities.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Prohibited uses: Gas stations and convenience stores with or without fuel, bars, and auto repair services, and the like. However, this provision does not preclude restaurants, or other similar allowed uses, from alcohol sales/services during course of business.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](C) [FONT=&quot]Density Allowed:[/FONT] Maximum of one dwelling unit per lot, unless developed pursuant to section (E)(1) below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](D) [FONT=&quot]Intensity allowed:[/FONT] A maximum FAR [floor to area ratio] of 0.65 (65%) and a maximum ISR of 0.60 (60%).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](E) [FONT=&quot]Special Considerations[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Live/work uses are encouraged, so long as the overall density for the development does not exceed four (4) dwelling units per acre and the development must be in scale and character of adjacent residential areas.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Outdoor storage, outdoor broadcasting or music, display of goods, or outdoor seating for cafes and restaurants may be permitted subject to a case-by-case determination of its impact on the abutting neighborhood and where it does not conflict with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. Size, mass, or scale of uses or structures may be limited to ensure compatibility with adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. The amount of land that will be designated NC may be limited to ensure that the area proposed for Neighborhood commercial designation, and the proposed uses thereon remain at neighborhood scale and character.[/FONT]


Here are the concerns I have shared via email with the County Commissioners:

The proposed Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Category allows for uses that are too intense for neighborhoods and provides few measurable guidelines for impacts to adjacent properties. Instead the proposal defers to subjective terms like ?may be permitted subject to case-by-case determination? or ?may be limited to ensure compatibility with adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods.?

First, the proposed language allows for non-neighborhood serving activities, such as a 25-room hotel, within its definition of allowable uses. A 25-room hotel is in no way the same, in either size or compatibility, as a small retail store, a real estate office, an attorney?s office, an ice cream shop, etc. The only currently operating hotel on 30A is the 60-room Watercolor Inn, and it was permitted and developed part of a highly-scrutinized DRI development. Unfortunately, the only way a 25-room hotel could be built would be for several currently-designated residential lots to be merged into a much larger lot, thereby making that site out-of-scale and incompatible for the neighborhood in which it will be located. If the County Commission believes that there are currently-existing residential properties that are better suited as hotels, then those distinct properties should be required to apply for a land-use category that better suits their needs. But to include a 25-room hotel as an allowable use for the Neighborhood Commercial category is stretching the definition of Neighborhood Commercial. It creates a de facto incompatible use in a neighborhood. Solution: Strike ?limited lodging not to exceed 25 rooms? from the Uses Allowed section of the proposed NC category and please consider prohibiting the merger of residential lots in this category.

Second, the proposed policy should be revised to include a specific measurable standard, such as maximum square footage allowed the new neighborhood commercial activity. It is not unreasonable to articulate such specific standards, especially where businesses will be located adjacent to residences, thereby further guaranteeing compatibility. When this suggestion came before the Planning Commission last week, the Commissioners insisted that specifics such as ?maximum square footage? were better left to the Land Development Code, not the Comprehensive Plan. However, it is important to note that with regard to all five Neighborhood Commercial categories in the Comprehensive Plan for land north of the Choctawhatchee Bay, ?maximum square footage? restrictions are included; property south of the Bay deserves the same treatment. (See: Estate Residential, Rural Residential, Rural Low Density, Rural Village, and Urban Residential).

Solution: Amend Policy L-1.4.4(D) to provide the following: Individual buildings on existing platted lots shall not exceed 3,000 square feet of gross floor area for a single use building or 5,000 square feet of gross floor area (including all uses) in mixed use buildings or live work units and be consistent with the character of existing residential area.

The proposed Neighborhood Commercial land use category specifically allows for outdoor music. Interestingly, not one other land use category in the entire Walton County Comprehensive Plan references outdoor music as an allowable use ? regardless of the intensity of the land use. This is a poor policy and will create conflicts far into the future. If there is ANY place that outdoor music should be discouraged, it is adjacent to currently existing residential properties. It is surprising and frankly indefensible that the proposed Neighborhood Commercial land use category, the most sensitive and restrictive of the commercial categories, specifically singles out and allows outdoor music. If anything, Neighborhood Commercial should be treated with a higher standard. It is hard to justify the Comprehensive Plan?s disparate treatment, and it appears to be arbitrary if not biased. Solution: Strike the reference to outdoor music in the Neighborhood Commercial category or make a blanket prohibition.

The location criteria for the new Neighborhood Commercial category is far too broad and conflicts with the underlying stated purpose of the category ? ?to designate small areas in proximity to residential areas that will allow for a limited group of commercial uses to serve the needs of those residents.? First, the proposal uses our currently designated Scenic Corridors south of US 98 as the place where Neighborhood Commercial will be appropriate. The problem is that the Scenic Corridors are ?all encompassing? with regard to South Walton and include not just all of 30A, but also 395, 283 (including south of 30A into Grayton Beach), 83 (including south of 30A into Blue Mountain Beach), and 393. The policies, as proposed, provide that property abutting every intersection of a local road onto a scenic corridor will be potential Neighborhood Commercial sites? that translates to 113 intersections on County Road 30A alone. The proposed location criteria are neither ?small? nor ?limited? and they allow for commercial activities that intrude into existing historic neighborhoods and for commercial activities that do a lot more than ?serve the needs of the residents.? Solution: Prohibit neighborhood commercial south of 30A, absent special circumstances. Redefine and further restrict the intersections along 30A that are appropriate for Neighborhood Commercial.
In summary, we support limited Neighborhood Commercial as long as it has appropriate location, use, and intensity standards. However, the proposed language has the potential to develop commercial far in excess of neighborhood scale commercial and could rival some of the more intense commercial categories allowed by law. Thank you for considering these comments and we look forwarded to working to refine and improve these policies before they are applied to the land use map.