BCC keeps increasing density to remove trees and build monster houses on every square inch of land...planning commission DENIED, BCC said "meh, hold my beer."
By DOTTY NIST
The Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has approved the rezoning of two Residential Preservation lots on Lee Place in Seagrove, a rezoning for industrial use on U.S. 98 East, a business park warehouse, and a 10-lot subdivision plat on five acres northwest of DeFuniak Springs.
The decisions took place at the May 23 BCC land use meeting at the South Walton Annex.
Baker Rezoning
....
This was a request on behalf of Stephen and Michelle Baker for a zoning district change from Residential Preservation to Low Density Residential four units per acre or lesser district on 0.51 acre on the north side of Lee Place, 0.06 mile east of the Robert Ellis Drive/Lee Place intersection in Seagrove.
Introducing the request, Stephen Schoen of Walton County Planning and Development Services reported that the Walton County Planning Commission had recommended denial in a 3-2 vote, with Planning Commissioner Dean Burgis abstaining.
He said the reasons given for the denial had been traffic, environmental, compatibility, and concerns related to short-term rentals, among others, with the planning commission indicating that there was a greater public benefit in not amending the future land use map as requested. He emphasized that the applicants had stated that no competent substantial evidence had been presented to the planning commission supporting the idea that there traffic would be increased with the rezoning.
Schoen told the BCC that the rezoning application was complete and substantially consistent with the Walton County Comprehensive Plan (CP) and Land Development Code (LDC).
Speaking on behalf of the applicants, attorney Stephen Tatum pointed out that the subject lot is not part of a platted subdivision.
The LDC describes the Residential Preservation (RP) zoning district as consisting “primarily of subdivisions existing as of November 7, 1996, approved development projects which are vested or built out, or recorded platted subdivisions that have infrastructure in place and are substantially built out.” Tatum maintained that the RP zoning district is intended to be assigned to platted lots.
He explained that the requested zoning change would enable the applicants to split the lot in half to create two lots, in line with the historical development pattern for the neighborhood now that water and sewer are available. In the Residential Preservation zoning district, lot splitting is not allowed.
Speaking about the 29 lots fronting Lee Place, Tatum said that 60 percent are a quarter acre or smaller in size.
He said there had been a lot of discussion at planning commission that creating two lots as opposed to one would increase traffic. Tatum said the applicants were of the opinion that with the larger lot there would be more ability for someone to build a larger house with more bedrooms and parking. With the lot split, he argued, it would be more likely that a smaller home would be built on each of the lots that would be more compatible with the neighborhood.
With required setbacks for two lots, he continued, there would be a 7 1/2-foot setback on each of the lots in the middle of the two lots, creating a combined 15-foot-wide setback in that location.
District 4 Commissioner Donna Johns said her concern was that someone would build two “monster homes” on each lot if the lots were split.
Tatum did not think that true monster houses would be likely with the split, and he maintained that the traffic would not be more with two smaller homes on the half acre versus one larger one. He also pointed out that, with two lots, parking and stormwater would have to be provided on each lot, resulting in less room to work with in constructing a home.
Tatum addressed misinformation that had been circulated that there was an intent to put Katrina cottages on the lots “and somehow do a bunch of them.” He explained that there was no truth to this, although the applicants currently live in a Katrina cottage/tiny home on their lot on Lee Place.
Tatum explained that, both with the subject rezoning and with another one on the agenda with the same applicants, also on Lee Place, the intent was to split the lots in two and sell them to a homebuyer who wants to build a custom home. It later was revealed that Baker intended to move to one of the lots and build there himself.
District 1 Commissioner Boots McCormick made a motion to approve the request. District 2 Commissioner Danny Glidewell seconded and then asked Tatum if there was any validity to the fear that some citizens had expressed in emails that a campground could be put in on the lots.
Tatum replied that this was not the intent—and that it could not happen with the zoning being requested. Mac Carpenter, Walton County planning and development services director, agreed that a campground would not be an allowable use with the requested zoning.
In response to questions about the tiny home that is his residence, applicant Stephen Baker said that when COVID hit, he and his wife had set up and permitted the Katrina cottage on the back of their lot to live in until they decided what they wanted to do long term. He said he absolutely did not plan to bring in any more Katrina cottages.
Baker said their plans were to move to a lot they own across the street next to Point Washington State Forest and sell their current lot with the cottage as a guest house, along with the pool at their current residence.
He emphasized that he was trying to protect the neighborhood and keep it compatible with quarter acre lots. “There is a gentleman who has been calling me for the last seven months; he wants to put a 9,000-square-foot house on one of my half-acre lots;” he said, “I don’t want that to happen.”
Glidewell asked Baker how many Katrina cottages were on the lot where Baker lives. He replied the one he and his wife are living in and one additional one on the front of the lot that they plan to put on the lot they will move to for use as a guest house.
“Well for me,” McCormick observed, “at the end of the day, with the monster house problem, it makes common sense to me, the lots are smaller, the less likely of having a humongous monster house.”
Tatum brought up case law applying to rezonings, specifically the 1993 Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners case in Brevard County. He described the standard set in that case with rezoning applications as, that where an application is consistent with the CP, “there has to be a showing by competent substantial evidence that keeping the current zoning is in the public interest,” in order for the commission to have the ability to deny a rezoning.
Also speaking for the applicants, engineer Dean Burgis confirmed that the property is “high and dry,” with no wetlands or undesirable features making it less developable.
Speaking in opposition to the rezoning was Lee Place homeowner and resident John Gary. He also identified himself as a registered architect. Gary described a home being constructed on a quarter-acre lot next door to his residence at 6,500 square feet with four levels, seven bedrooms, six bathrooms, and an elevator. Gary said the house under construction was being set up “strictly to rent,” and predicted that the same thing would happen on the subject lots once they were split.
“Why would we want to double that issue?” he asked.
BCC Chairman Tony Anderson countered that he would not like to see a monster house built on a quarter-acre lot, either—but that there was no evidence that Baker would sell a lot to someone who would do so. He told Gary that all the applicant was asking for was the same consideration that other property owners in the neighborhood had received in having their lots split into quarter-acre lots.
Johns pointed out that Baker had said he would be using one of the quarter-acre lots for his own residence and had said he was not going to be building a monster home there. She also Told Gary that the county was looking at rewriting the LDC with the help of consultants “and I, like you, hope that we can manage these monster homes better.”
Sherry Clark, a 35-year property owner and full-time resident at neighboring Cassine Townhomes, also urged against the rezoning. She spoke of frequent flooding and the wetlands behind Cassine Townhomes being severely under stress, with buildings sinking as a result.
Clark also brought up severe parking and traffic problems in the neighborhood, overcrowding on the beach, lack of cell phone coverage, and long waits for medical treatment. “We do not have the infrastructure for you all to be splitting these lots further and further,” she said.
“You’re degrading the quality of life,” Clark told the commissioners.
Cassine Gardens resident Judith Robinson agreed with Clark. “We have major concerns because of the watershed issue,” she added.
Robinson was of the opinion that the subject property had been zoned Residential Preservation “for a purpose over the years,” and said that it appeared that purpose was being ignored now.
Robinson observed that, while Baker might “do a great job” with preserving the neighborhood with his property, this might not be the case with the property coming into someone else’s hands in the future. She was of the opinion that the rezoning would not benefit residents but would only provide a financial benefit for developers.
Replying to a question about stormwater, Burgis was aware of that issue on the Cassine property and commented that this was a development built around a swamp. “There isn’t a good answer,” he said of the flooding.
However, Burgis said the lots being considered for rezoning would be required to have single-family stormwater systems and that stormwater from the lots would be retained on site.
McCormick’s previous motion for approval of the rezoning carried unanimously.
By DOTTY NIST
The Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has approved the rezoning of two Residential Preservation lots on Lee Place in Seagrove, a rezoning for industrial use on U.S. 98 East, a business park warehouse, and a 10-lot subdivision plat on five acres northwest of DeFuniak Springs.
The decisions took place at the May 23 BCC land use meeting at the South Walton Annex.
Baker Rezoning
....
This was a request on behalf of Stephen and Michelle Baker for a zoning district change from Residential Preservation to Low Density Residential four units per acre or lesser district on 0.51 acre on the north side of Lee Place, 0.06 mile east of the Robert Ellis Drive/Lee Place intersection in Seagrove.
Introducing the request, Stephen Schoen of Walton County Planning and Development Services reported that the Walton County Planning Commission had recommended denial in a 3-2 vote, with Planning Commissioner Dean Burgis abstaining.
He said the reasons given for the denial had been traffic, environmental, compatibility, and concerns related to short-term rentals, among others, with the planning commission indicating that there was a greater public benefit in not amending the future land use map as requested. He emphasized that the applicants had stated that no competent substantial evidence had been presented to the planning commission supporting the idea that there traffic would be increased with the rezoning.
Schoen told the BCC that the rezoning application was complete and substantially consistent with the Walton County Comprehensive Plan (CP) and Land Development Code (LDC).
Speaking on behalf of the applicants, attorney Stephen Tatum pointed out that the subject lot is not part of a platted subdivision.
The LDC describes the Residential Preservation (RP) zoning district as consisting “primarily of subdivisions existing as of November 7, 1996, approved development projects which are vested or built out, or recorded platted subdivisions that have infrastructure in place and are substantially built out.” Tatum maintained that the RP zoning district is intended to be assigned to platted lots.
He explained that the requested zoning change would enable the applicants to split the lot in half to create two lots, in line with the historical development pattern for the neighborhood now that water and sewer are available. In the Residential Preservation zoning district, lot splitting is not allowed.
Speaking about the 29 lots fronting Lee Place, Tatum said that 60 percent are a quarter acre or smaller in size.
He said there had been a lot of discussion at planning commission that creating two lots as opposed to one would increase traffic. Tatum said the applicants were of the opinion that with the larger lot there would be more ability for someone to build a larger house with more bedrooms and parking. With the lot split, he argued, it would be more likely that a smaller home would be built on each of the lots that would be more compatible with the neighborhood.
With required setbacks for two lots, he continued, there would be a 7 1/2-foot setback on each of the lots in the middle of the two lots, creating a combined 15-foot-wide setback in that location.
District 4 Commissioner Donna Johns said her concern was that someone would build two “monster homes” on each lot if the lots were split.
Tatum did not think that true monster houses would be likely with the split, and he maintained that the traffic would not be more with two smaller homes on the half acre versus one larger one. He also pointed out that, with two lots, parking and stormwater would have to be provided on each lot, resulting in less room to work with in constructing a home.
Tatum addressed misinformation that had been circulated that there was an intent to put Katrina cottages on the lots “and somehow do a bunch of them.” He explained that there was no truth to this, although the applicants currently live in a Katrina cottage/tiny home on their lot on Lee Place.
Tatum explained that, both with the subject rezoning and with another one on the agenda with the same applicants, also on Lee Place, the intent was to split the lots in two and sell them to a homebuyer who wants to build a custom home. It later was revealed that Baker intended to move to one of the lots and build there himself.
District 1 Commissioner Boots McCormick made a motion to approve the request. District 2 Commissioner Danny Glidewell seconded and then asked Tatum if there was any validity to the fear that some citizens had expressed in emails that a campground could be put in on the lots.
Tatum replied that this was not the intent—and that it could not happen with the zoning being requested. Mac Carpenter, Walton County planning and development services director, agreed that a campground would not be an allowable use with the requested zoning.
In response to questions about the tiny home that is his residence, applicant Stephen Baker said that when COVID hit, he and his wife had set up and permitted the Katrina cottage on the back of their lot to live in until they decided what they wanted to do long term. He said he absolutely did not plan to bring in any more Katrina cottages.
Baker said their plans were to move to a lot they own across the street next to Point Washington State Forest and sell their current lot with the cottage as a guest house, along with the pool at their current residence.
He emphasized that he was trying to protect the neighborhood and keep it compatible with quarter acre lots. “There is a gentleman who has been calling me for the last seven months; he wants to put a 9,000-square-foot house on one of my half-acre lots;” he said, “I don’t want that to happen.”
Glidewell asked Baker how many Katrina cottages were on the lot where Baker lives. He replied the one he and his wife are living in and one additional one on the front of the lot that they plan to put on the lot they will move to for use as a guest house.
“Well for me,” McCormick observed, “at the end of the day, with the monster house problem, it makes common sense to me, the lots are smaller, the less likely of having a humongous monster house.”
Tatum brought up case law applying to rezonings, specifically the 1993 Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners case in Brevard County. He described the standard set in that case with rezoning applications as, that where an application is consistent with the CP, “there has to be a showing by competent substantial evidence that keeping the current zoning is in the public interest,” in order for the commission to have the ability to deny a rezoning.
Also speaking for the applicants, engineer Dean Burgis confirmed that the property is “high and dry,” with no wetlands or undesirable features making it less developable.
Speaking in opposition to the rezoning was Lee Place homeowner and resident John Gary. He also identified himself as a registered architect. Gary described a home being constructed on a quarter-acre lot next door to his residence at 6,500 square feet with four levels, seven bedrooms, six bathrooms, and an elevator. Gary said the house under construction was being set up “strictly to rent,” and predicted that the same thing would happen on the subject lots once they were split.
“Why would we want to double that issue?” he asked.
BCC Chairman Tony Anderson countered that he would not like to see a monster house built on a quarter-acre lot, either—but that there was no evidence that Baker would sell a lot to someone who would do so. He told Gary that all the applicant was asking for was the same consideration that other property owners in the neighborhood had received in having their lots split into quarter-acre lots.
Johns pointed out that Baker had said he would be using one of the quarter-acre lots for his own residence and had said he was not going to be building a monster home there. She also Told Gary that the county was looking at rewriting the LDC with the help of consultants “and I, like you, hope that we can manage these monster homes better.”
Sherry Clark, a 35-year property owner and full-time resident at neighboring Cassine Townhomes, also urged against the rezoning. She spoke of frequent flooding and the wetlands behind Cassine Townhomes being severely under stress, with buildings sinking as a result.
Clark also brought up severe parking and traffic problems in the neighborhood, overcrowding on the beach, lack of cell phone coverage, and long waits for medical treatment. “We do not have the infrastructure for you all to be splitting these lots further and further,” she said.
“You’re degrading the quality of life,” Clark told the commissioners.
Cassine Gardens resident Judith Robinson agreed with Clark. “We have major concerns because of the watershed issue,” she added.
Robinson was of the opinion that the subject property had been zoned Residential Preservation “for a purpose over the years,” and said that it appeared that purpose was being ignored now.
Robinson observed that, while Baker might “do a great job” with preserving the neighborhood with his property, this might not be the case with the property coming into someone else’s hands in the future. She was of the opinion that the rezoning would not benefit residents but would only provide a financial benefit for developers.
Replying to a question about stormwater, Burgis was aware of that issue on the Cassine property and commented that this was a development built around a swamp. “There isn’t a good answer,” he said of the flooding.
However, Burgis said the lots being considered for rezoning would be required to have single-family stormwater systems and that stormwater from the lots would be retained on site.
McCormick’s previous motion for approval of the rezoning carried unanimously.
