By DOTTY NIST
County commissioners will have the final word on a 90-room Hampton Inn proposed for CR-30A in Seagrove.
The project, also known as Chateau 30A, will move forward with a favorable recommendation due to a 3-2 approval vote at a Jan. 14 special meeting of the Walton County Planning Commission.
The meeting, which took place at the South Walton Annex, drew several hundred attendees, who filled the meeting room and lobby, spilling out the front door of the building. Over 9,200 people had signed an online petition in opposition to the hotel project.
A 28-unit condominium and 3,600 square feet of commercial had previously been proposed for the project site, which is a 2.4-acre parcel on the north side of CR-30A across from Williams Street. The condominium proposal received approval as a minor development in March but was not built.
Later there had been a redesign of the project calling for the 90-room hotel, which would be a Hampton Inn, according to submittals. Current plans also call for 660 square feet of retail to accompany the hotel. The parcel is in an area classified as Village Mixed Use.
A county staff report on the proposal stated that the plans were consistent with the minimum requirements of the Walton County Land Development Code (LDC) and Comprehensive Plan (CP) “unless other evidence is presented to the contrary.” The report also noted that the project does not meet transportation concurrency requirements under the land development code and states that the developer “may be eligible” to satisfy those requirements through a total nuisproportionate fair share contribution of $159,600.
Tallahassee attorney David Theriaque and engineer Scott Jenkins represented the applicants at the meeting, while local attorneys Colleen Sachs and Lois La Seur represented opponents of the project. Developer Charles Rigdon was present and made brief comments.
Jenkins explained that the parcel is bordered by Seagrove Baptist Church, a storage facility, and other retail. He said the building would be four stories and less than 50 feet in height. Jenkins added that allowable intensity for the parcel would be 85 percent, with only 56.7 percent proposed and that allowable floor area ratio would be 2.0, with 0.57 proposed. Stormwater drainage was designed to retain water from a 100-year storm event, he added.
In response to a question, Jenkins said that 102 parking spaces were planned, which would meet the Walton County Land Development Code’s requirement for 1.1 spaces per room.
More than two dozen community members in attendance spoke in opposition to the proposal, with only project proponents speaking in favor.
“That hotel does not fit in anywhere on 30A on that area of the beach, said South Gulf Drive resident James Bishop. He expressed concern that lights from the hotel would shine down Williams Street and affect nesting sea turtles. He also feared that the project would add to the flooding problems of nearby Brown Street, which he said had to be pumped out “every time it rains.”
“It’s a dangerous situation with the traffic…we just don’t have the room to accommodate it,” Bishop said of the hotel.
Resident Rod Wilson shared the flooding concerns stated by Bishop and also disagreed with the county planning department’s opinion that the hotel and small retail area met the conditions for Village Mixed Use, a classification he argued should properly be accompanied with “internal capture of traffic.”
Contributions to the county’s proportionate fair share program may be used for transportation improvements on roadway sections in the vicinity of the corresponding projects. However Wilson expressed doubt that those funds could help relieve traffic problems on CR-30A. “There are very limited ways in which 30A can be improved,” he told the planning commissioners.
Jeff Floyd, a south Walton County resident and member of Seagrove Baptist Church, expressed concern that overflow parking from the hotel would wind up in the church parking lot.
Tim Parker, a trustee with the church, was worried that spring breakers from the hotel would “hang out” on the church property.
Richard Hixon, a 17-year resident, brought up the potential “overburdening” of beach accesses in the area as a result of the hotel. Walter Moss was in agreement, saying that public parking in the area is lacking.
Richard Foquet encouraged the county to adopt smart growth and transect planning in order to make development more predictable.
Representing the Seaside Town Council, Arthur Kahn said he was “stunned at the magnitude of this development” which would “shoehorn 400 to 500 people” onto the property. “This project begs you to use sound discretion on 30A,” he urged the planning commissioners. The question, Kahn said, was “Does this fit what 30A should be?”
“There is nothing about this that’s a village concept at all,” objected Mark Schnell, a Seagrove resident and professional planner. Schnell also deemed the proposed hotel as incompatible due to the scale of the building.
Attorney Lois La Seur raised questions about what she called an “illegal lot split” that she noted had separated the hotel property from the property where Seagrove Self Storage is now located. She questioned how the county could issue a development order for a project on a parcel “not legally created.”
La Seur also maintained that additional preservation area would be required on the property if the lot split had not been allowed and also questioned whether, in any event, a preservation buy-out proposed as part of the development should be permitted.
According to the staff report, 2.10 acres of existing vegetation on the parcel is subject to the county’s vegetation preservation requirement, with the required preservation area calculated at 50 percent or 1.05 acres. The proposal provides for the developer to buy out 0.52 of the 1.05 acres.
La Seur was of the opinion that the buy-out would not be a good idea for this parcel and that officials would have discretion as to whether to allow it.
“This is a joke,” long term resident Thomas Gallion said of the project. He pledged that if it were approved, “I will sue the county.”
“Myself and my neighbors are worried about the drainage and the traffic,” said Brown Street resident Alfred Testa.
“I ask you preserve what this community is all about,” Brian Schwartz, the last citizen to speak, urged the planning commissioners.
Theriaque called for the panel to base their decision on whether the proposal met the “black-and-white rules” that the county had adopted rather than on petitions and desires expressed. He argued that the developer was not asking for a plan amendment, land use change, or “a single relief” from the LDC or CP. Village Mixed Use is one of the county’s most intensive land use classifications, Theriaque continued.
While questions had been raised about the combination of the hotel and 660-square-foot retail space complying with Village Mixed Use, Theriaque pointed out that no percentages are set for mixes of uses and that there is no written requirement for residential as part of Village Mixed Use.
“We meet the mix that’s allowed,” he summarized.
“Yes, 30A is busy,” Theriaque said with regard to the comments on traffic problems. He commented that he had never heard of an applicant being told that they could not resolve traffic concurrency issues through use of the proportionate fair share program. “Your code does not give you the authority to say no,” Theriaque asserted.
There is no county requirement, he continued, for a developer to provide beach access. “Is it a concern to the community? Yes,” Theriaque admitted.
Regarding the lot split, he maintained that the time to challenge that would have been within 30 days of when it occurred 10 years ago.
Ridgdon commented that he had decided on a Hampton Inn because this was the number one family hospitality enterprise in the United States. Hampton Inns do not serve alcohol, he said. Theriaque pointed out that no alcohol sales would be allowed on the property in any case due to the proximity of the church and the county’s rules.
Planning commissioner Tom Terrell moved for approval of the proposal based on evidence presented.
Planning Commission Chairman Teddy Stewart said he was all for property rights but questioned whether the small commercial area was sufficient for what should be provided as far as a mix of uses in a development of this size in this land use classification. “It should be truly mixed use,” he said.
Terrell agreed but said that the LDC/CP had not been written to address this.
Terrell said he had heard arguments from the citizens that he had felt were “right in my heart” but observed that the application does meet the LDC and CP requirements.
“I applaud them for bringing these arguments forward,” he said of the citizens.
Terrell noted that the LDC and CP are lacking in many ways and that parts of the documents should be looked at closely with an eye to revisions. Planning Commissioner Lee Perry agreed.
“Our position here tonight is that we have to go with what we have,” Terrell told attendees.
Planning commissioner Suzanne Harris expressed concern about project approval continuing with traffic concurrency lacking on CR-30A. She predicted that that if this continued “then you have a hell of a mess.” Harris questioned whether allowing developers to participate in the proportionate fair share program was mandatory.
Mark Davis, attorney for the planning commission, responded that the CP states that such participation is guaranteed.
Stewart suggested attaching to the motion the question to county commissioners whether the intent or spirit of Village Mixed Use is met by the 660-square-foot retail area. Terrell agreed to amend his motion to add that question.
Harris asked why the planning commission even holds meetings if they have no option to vote a project down when it is said to meet the letter of the law.
Davis responded that nothing says that the planning commissioners must conclude that a project meets the LDC and CP if they do not think so.
Planning commissioner Sally Merrifield corrected the assertion made by some citizens that the project could be stopped by the planning commission before going before the commissioners. If the planning commission denies a project, it still goes before the county commission, she noted.
A vote was taken on the motion for approval. It carried 3-2, with Harris and Stewart voting no.
As of press time, no date had been set for the Walton County Board of County Commissioners’ hearing on the Chateau 30A/Hampton Inn proposal.
