By DOTTY NIST
Residents of CR-30A awoke to a sunny morning on April 21, with no 90-room chain hotel on the horizon for their scenic roadway.
This was the result of a Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) special meeting the previous evening at Emerald Coast Middle School. Running for several hours and attended by hundreds of citizens, the quasi-judicial special meeting was the second and final installment of the BCC’s consideration of the development proposal known as the Redesign of Chateau 30A/Hampton Inn.
Since the hotel proposal came to light in early December, south Walton County residents and property owners had mounted a spirited campaign to stop the development. A web site, LoveMy30A.com, was launched to raise funds and get signatures on petitions against the hotel. The South Walton Community Council (SWCC) took on a leadership role in the opposition, using donations provided by project opponents to obtain legal representation.
Chateau 30A had previously been proposed as a 28-unit condominium prior to its redesign last year. The condo had not been constructed. The subject property is a 2.4-acre parcel on the north side of CR-30A across from Williams Street in Seagrove, in a Village Mixed Use (VMU) land use area.
The proposal under recent consideration has been for a 59,256-square-foot, four-story, 90-room Hampton Inn, combined with a second building containing 660 square feet of retail. If approved, this would have been the first chain hotel for CR-30A, which is designated as a scenic corridor by both the state and the county.
Project applicants were Charles Rigdon and M.C. Davis. They were represented at hearings on the project by Tallahassee attorney David Theriaque. The SWCC was represented by local attorney Colleen Sachs.
In addition to attorneys’ arguments and presentations at the April 20 quasi-judicial hearing, over 30 citizens addressed the BCC to give their views on the proposal. The public comments indicated almost-unanimous disapproval. Camp Creek resident Bob Brooke’s comments that, “The rule of law should apply here,” and that the hotel would provide an alternative to the problematic “event houses” were the nearest thing to support expressed by any citizen in attendance.
Among Sachs’ arguments was that outstanding matters with the lot and one adjoining to the north were required to be addressed before the parcel could be developed. She maintained that the lot was “nonconforming” due to being separated from property to the north apparently without any lot split being approved by the county. She also contended that in the process of the two lots being separated, required preservation of vegetation was undermined. Sachs maintained that a 0.52-acre buy-out requested for part of the required preservation area, proposed as part of the hotel development, was discretionary, not mandatory for BCC approval.
“You’ve got to look at whether it’s a good idea,” she told the commissioners, “to allow preservation buy-out” on property that is in the watershed of Eastern Lake, a coastal dune lake.
Sachs also contended that the proposed use would not be consistent with a VMU classification. “There is no mix of uses,” she stated, adding that interconnectivity would be lacking, that the development would not serve the neighborhood, and that it would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Citizen comments ranged from technical to emotional.
The first citizen to address the BCC, Nora Murphy, a 27-year county resident who said she had worked on CR-30A for about 20 of those years, urged for the hotel to be built on U.S. 98 where infrastructure is in place to support it. She referred to CR-30A as “maxed out” and not able to handle such growth.
Tim Parker, a trustee of Seagrove Baptist Church, which adjoins the project site, told the commissioners that all church members oppose the development. He spoke of bad traffic back-ups along CR-30A and expressed concern that the church would have to tow cars overflowing from the hotel’s 102-space parking area that would be parked on the church property.
South Walton County resident Alan Ficarra raised question as to whether the project site was a lot of record. He said he had been unable to find any evidence of a recorded lot split for the property from the property adjoining to the north, or a recorded plat for the lot. Among other questions, Ficarra asked why the applicants were being allowed to put in a new curb cut on CR-30A instead of using the easement recorded in county records.
Bill Butela said of fellow community residents, “They’re fearful of the Hampton Inn. The Hampton Inn does not fit our community.”
Eastern Lake resident Charlotte Wright agreed, calling the Hampton Inn “a fine hotel but not appropriate for our beach.” “30A is all about families,” she told the commissioners. She urged them to remember the character of the community.
Debbie Mossburg spoke with pride about recently introducing her two-year-old grandson to the beautiful and relatively-calm beach in south Walton County. She warned that the community that residents have known “will not be the same if developments like this continue to go through.”
Gail Turner commented that it is her fear that “we are going to look like Panama City Beach.”
“It doesn’t go with the plan. It doesn’t go with what people want,” said local realty company owner Ron Romano.
District 5 Commissioner Cindy Meadows questioned county planning staff about a boundary dispute regarding the part of the property bordering the church.
“That was a concern of ours,” Wayne Dyess, county director of planning and development services, responded. Dyess explained that the developers’ engineer had assured staff that another area on the site could be used for the preservation that was planned within the contested area if necessary. This was later confirmed by the engineer, Scott Jenkins.
Charles Rigdon told the BCC that he had worked out a park-and-ride program with Sunshine Shuttle that would provide for hotel employees to park off-site. He added that he had committed to have the Sunshine Turtle Express trolley stop at the hotel property to pick up and let off riders.
Ridgon acknowledged that the applicants had added the 660-foot retail area to their plans because planning staff had insisted on a mix of uses on the application. He said the retail area would be next to the pool and would offer hot dogs, suntan lotion, and some other items.
Ridgon told the commissioners that he was willing to modify/upgrade the architecture of hotel, submitted as prototype in appearance, to match that of the Jekyll Island Hampton Inn, upon project approval if this was the desire of the commissioners. He said the building footprint would remain the same as in the submittal but that the exterior modification would cost an additional $100,000 to $200,000.
Regarding the exterior upgrade that was offered, Meadows reacted that it in no way reflected the character of south Walton County except perhaps the appearance of a penitentiary or the hospital.
In response to a question, Rigdon told the commissioners that the proposed parking for the hotel met both the Hampton Inn standards and those of the county.
In his closing remarks, Theriaque thanked both the commissioners and members of the south Walton County community who had attended the two BCC hearings on the proposal.
He reminded the commissioners that the proposed intensity for the development was below what is allowable (0.57 of the allowable 0.85 Impervious Surface Area), that the proposed 0.58 Floor Areas Ratio was below the allowable 2.0, and that 90 rooms are proposed when 125 would be allowed.
Limited Lodging such as the proposed hotel is expressly permitted in VMU, Theriaque continued.
He provided a detailed interpretation of applicable portions of the Walton County Comprehensive Plan (CP) and Walton County Land Development Code (LDC), maintaining that no mixture of uses is required on the parcel as CR-30A VMU.
On the issue of compatibility, Theriaque pointed out that uses abutting the project site consist of the church to the west, a storage facility to the north, mini-storage to the northeast, commercial retail to the east, and three vacant lots across CR-30A to the south. All, he indicated, are VMU except for the church, which is in the Institutional land use category.
Theriaque told the commissioners that they had been presented with no competent substantial evidence that the hotel would “create an undue negative impact” on surrounding uses, the threshold of which would be that any of the abutting uses could no longer function. The only compatibility analysis presented, he continued, had been by the applicants’ expert witness Wendy Grey, who had said that the development would be compatible.
Theriaque contended that the BCC would not have the authority not to consent to the proposed 0.52-acre preservation buy-out. To do so without duly-adopted criteria as a basis would be arbitrary and capricious, he argued.
On the question of the lot split, Theriaque pointed out that in 2004 the BCC had approved a development order for the northern parcel where the storage business is now operating. This was the property that had previously been combined with the project site. The development order was not challenged within 90 days and therefore became effective, he contended. Later a development order was issued for the southern part of the property, Theriaque said.
What can property owners do but rely on development orders approved by the BCC? he asked.
Theriaque also maintained that it was too late to argue that preservation requirements for the northern parcel must be complied with on the southern parcel due to alleged previous mistakes by the county. It would be unfair, he argued, to put this burden on the current owners of the project site.
Theriaque told the commissioners that he was aware that his comments had not been well received by most of the people in attendance and that he was aware of “passionate opposition” to the project.
“The law is clear…it is not a popularity poll,” he continued. The BCC must apply the county’s regulations “regardless of the applause meter,” he urged.
“Your hands are tied to your regulations,” Theriaque told the commissioners.
With time having come for a decision, Meadows volunteered to speak first since the hotel was proposed in her district.
She commented that with regard to commercially-oriented or intense development she has an “overall tenet” that she follows that the commissioners have the authority to act to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.
While the developers’ attorney may have “his interpretations of law,” Meadows continued, “south Walton has hit a tipping point.” She explained that this applies to traffic, stormwater management, and other factors. For 15 years the BCC has failed to provide stormwater infrastructure for CR-30A, Meadows lamented. In addition, the county has not complied with its own comprehensive plan for yearly reports on “where we are on the concurrency scale” for traffic, she continued.
Bridges and roads are “cracking and falling in,” and traffic backs up for long distances on CR-30A, a constrained roadway, Meadows noted. There are no improvements listed for CR-30A in the county’s current capital improvements plan, she commented.
With such infrastructure deficiencies, Meadows maintained, the BCC would be “remiss” in approving any development “of this intense nature” until issues with the infrastructure of CR-30A and surrounding areas have been addressed.
She moved for denial, citing as a basis a litany of LDC sections and CP policies, among these CP policies that she explained were to ensure that downstream properties are not flooded by new development, and LDC sections pertaining VMU and roadway level of service requirements. Meadows also brought up the boundary dispute applying to the preservation area for the property and maintained that the development would not be compatible with surrounding properties and neighborhoods.
District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones seconded the motion for denial.
District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman commented that he disagreed with Theriaque’s statements that a mix of uses was not a requirement on the property. He said he thought that such a mix would be required.
There was a call for the question, and BCC Chairman Bill Imfeld asked for the vote. All four commissioners in attendance voted in favor of the motion, resulting in denial of the proposal.
District 4 Commissioner Sara Comander did not participate in the hearing, due to its quasi-judicial nature and her absence for reason of illness at the first portion of the hearing on March 5. That hearing had been recessed without presentations, comment and discussion being completed in the interest of time constraints.
