By DOTTY NIST
The Walton County Planning Commission has voted in favor of changes to regulations applying to lots in the vicinity of the county’s coastal dune lakes. The decision took place at the board’s April 9 meeting at the South Walton Annex.
There was a considerable amount of discussion on the proposed changes brought forth by county staff, along with comment pro and con by members of the public.
There are 15 named coastal dune lakes along Walton County’s coastline. These lakes have an intermittent connection with the gulf when their water, fed by streams, groundwater, rain, and storm surge, breaks out into the gulf through the formation of what is known as an outfall.
Protective regulations were first put in place for Walton County’s coastal dune lakes in 1993 but have not been uniformly enforced as lots on the dune lakes were developed over the years.
Brian Underwood of Walton County Planning and Development Services presented the proposed changes to regulations applying to dune lake lots. These were contained in two ordinances.
The first ordinance presented by Underwood called for striking from the Walton County Comprehensive Plan (CP) a requirement for the owner of a lot within the 300-foot Coastal Dune Lake Protection Zone (CDLPZ) to clear/develop no more than a certain percentage of the portion within that zone. Under existing standards, the percentage is 25 percent. The CDLPZ zone extends 300 feet from the lakes and their tributaries. A 100-foot dune lake buffer, within which there can be no clearing except for a walkway, also applies to many of the deeper dune lake lots—and must currently be excluded in calculating the clearable/developable portion.
Underwood explained that the proposed striking would allow property owners to seek variances for vegetative clearing/development of their lots from the Walton County Zoning Board of Adjustments (ZBA). Currently property owners do not have the ability to do this, since variances from the Walton County Land Development Code (LDC) may be approved—but variances from the CP may not. Walton County Planning Manager Mac Carpenter noted that a property owner with “a true hardship” would be able to obtain a variance from the ZBA.
Jacquee Markel, who lives on Oyster Lake, one of the county’s coastal dune lakes, spoke against the ordinance under consideration and the one to be presented next regarding the coastal dune lake regulations. She provided a written hand-out to the board members.
Markel told the planning commissioners that the current percentage allowed for clearing/development of lots in the CDLPZ is based on a 1996 agreement between the county and the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The regulation was put into the CP “for safe keeping,” she continued, in order to prevent it from being altered. (Changes to the CP require state approval.)
As the resident of a dune lake, Markel saw opening CDLPZ standards up to variances as “a slippery slope.”
She noted that last year the Florida Legislature had recognized these lakes’ importance due to their rarity and also their positive impact on the economy.
Nine out of 15 of the lakes have been evaluated by the state as imperiled due to degradation, Markel told the planning commissioners. She pointed out that four of the 15 lakes are totally within state parks and that the location of those four provides them protection from the impacts of development.
This summer, Markel continued, the state will be assessing the dune lakes. Findings of degradation trigger Clean Water Act protections, she explained, that will require remediation by the county—and taxpayers having to “pay the piper” for that work.
Other citizens, Richard Bryan and Susan Paladini, manager of the Coffeen Nature Preserve, spoke against the proposed ordinance as well.
Representing Redfish Lane subdivision owners, Pat Blackshear asked the board members to consider adding language to the CP in support of county acquisition of dune lake parcels and in support of development of an educational program on the dune lakes.
Carpenter provided information that citizens had previously requested on the number of lots that would be affected. He gave figures per lake for lots within the CDLPZ, including those off the dune lake tributaries. Publicly-owned lots were excluded. Carpenter questioned the figures staff had furnished for Draper Lake, as they were the same as the ones reported for Big Redfish Lake.
The figures were: Lake Powell – 217; Stallworth Lake – 113; Allen Lake – 133; Oyster Lake – 288; Eastern Lake – 310; Deer Lake – 0; Camp Creek Lake – 215; Fuller Lake – 35; Morris Lake – 0; Campbell Lake – 0; Alligator Lake – 48; Little Redfish Lake – 39; Western Lake – 615; Big Redfish Lake – 298; and Draper Lake – 298.
Figures for the number of lots smaller than one-eighth acres were provided as well. These included: Little Redfish Lake – 3; Alligator Lake – 1; Fuller Lake – 0; Morris Lake – 0; Campbell Lake – 0; Deer Lake – 0; Camp Creek Lake – 45; Eastern Lake – 100; Stallworth Lake – 1; Allen Lake – 17; Oyster Lake – 58; Lake Powell – 45; Western Lake – 81; Big Redfish Lake – 179; Draper Lake – 179.
Planning commissioner David Kramer observed that the proposed language “basically gives us home rule,” and would eliminate the need for the county to seek the state’s consent to change regulations for the CDLPZ. He called that “always a good move” and declared himself in favor of the proposal.
Kramer’s motion for approval was met with all aye votes, with the exception of planning commissioner Tom Patton, who had recused due his ownership of property within the CDLPZ.
Underwood then presented changes proposed as part of the second amendment under consideration with regard to the CDLPZ regulations.The most substantive of these was that the allowable portion for vegetative clearing/development of the part of lots within the CDLPZ would be increased from 25 percent to 50 percent, with that percentage to be calculated with applicable 100-foot dune lake buffers included in calculation of the 50 percent.
The proposed ordinance also provided for the owner of a nonconforming home that suffered destruction to rebuild to the same footprint of the destroyed home.
` “Currently we don’t allow rebuilding of a legal nonconformity,” Underwood explained.
The ordinance provided for some other exceptions, among those that provisions on recorded subdivision plats would supercede the CDLPZ regulations.
Several citizens and a homeowners’ representative spoke in favor of the ordinance. Albatross Court resident David Milam, an attorney, spoke on behalf of Grayton Beach property owner Parker Hicks, whose property is within the CDLPZ.
Milam called the 75-percent preservation requirements “arbitrary and unreasonable,” although he said he did understand the need to protect the environment and resource. He warned that mandating the 75-percent requirement would reduce property value and expressed a desire for regulations that would result in “marketable” lots within the CDLPZ.
Planning commissioner Suzanne Harris asked if Hicks had known when he purchased his property that it was subject to the CDLPZ regulations. Milam said he did not think so. Milam indicated that he himself owned a 1/3-acre lot in the CDLPZ. Harris questioned Milam’s desire to relax the CDLPZ regulations now, when he as an attorney should have known what those regulations were when he brought his lot.
“That’s part of the legislative process…at the end of the day, that’s what we’re here for,” Milam responded. He added that it was his understanding that his lot had been appraised as if he would have been able to build to standard setbacks.
Alligator Lake resident and homeowner Bonnie McQuiston also spoke in favor of the changes. She said people in her neighborhood love the lake and that she had moved to her property in 1992. The county had begun applying the regulations to lots within the CDLPZ last May, McQuiston told the board members. She pointed out that the 25-percent clearable portion cannot include gardens or areas covered with pine straw, adding that setback requirements themselves have restricted the buildable area of lots. McQuiston called for the implementation of a countywide stormwater retention plan. She warned that the tax rate would be devalued if the changes were not approved.
Blackshear indicated that the percentage change would help the homeowners that she represents, who, she emphasized, love their lake. She highlighted the need for enforcement of CDLPZ regulations, county purchase of dune lake outfalls, the elimination of septic tanks on the dune lakes, and stormwater facility installation and maintenance by the county.
Representing the Lakepoint homeowners’ association, Beverly Kraska spoke in support of the changes as well. She noted that there are 29 nonconforming homes in the subdivision. Homeowners have the goal of protecting the coastal dune lake in their vicinity, Kraska noted, describing the ongoing monitoring of the dune lake for nutrients over the past 18 years through the Lakewatch program. Based on that data, she told the board members, it has not been demonstrated that vegetative clearing of the lots within the CDLPZ has a negative impact.
Markel later countered that vegetation has function on these lots and filters contaminants from the watershed. There must be trade-offs for owners of lots in the CDLPZ, she argued. If they want a bigger home, they may not be able to have a pool, for example, she commented.
“By swatting a mosquito with a sledge hammer, you’re creating this whole other problem that we’re going to be paying for,” Markel said in reference to the proposed changes.
Marsha Anderson of the Coastal Dune Lake Advisory Board called for the proposed ordinance to be “pulled apart” so that immediate issues faced by owners of nonconforming lots in the CDLPZ could be addressed—but delaying a decision on the change to a 50-percent area for vegetative clearing. She was of the opinion that people buying property in the CDLPZ have been aware what the rules were but have continued to want to “build mega-mansions” that will negatively impact the dune lakes.
Anderson referenced an ongoing study by community member and scientist Catherine Gross on how the proposed changes would affect the dune lakes. She called for a delay on a decision regarding the allowable area for clearing until data from that study was available. This data should be available by the end of summer, she said. Anderson also called for additional workshops on the topic, as the county had held only one workshop on this issue.
Western Lake Garner resident Garner Chandler also called for approval of the portion of the ordinance applying to rebuilding of destroyed nonconforming structures but delay of the remainder to allow more time for study. She called the dune lakes the “gems and jewels” of south Walton County.
Carpenter later commented that the proposed changes are not meant to weaken but instead “the exact opposite,” to strengthen the county’s ability to protect the dune lakes.
Teddy Stewart, planning commission chairman, called the proposed changes “a common sense approach.”
Kramer moved for approval of the ordinance with a minor wording change. His motion was approved with all aye votes and with Patton recusing, resulting in a recommendation in favor of the measure, with final consideration to be by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) in future public session.