By DOTTY NIST
Due to plans involving an access road for some of the lots, a proposal for a six-lot subdivision in Inlet Beach encountered opposition and failed to garner approval by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC).
The proposal, the Steffen Subdivision, was heard at the BCC regular meeting on Aug. 11 at the South Walton Annex. All commissioners were present with the exception of Bill Imfeld, BCC chair. District 4 Commissioner Sara Comander chaired in his absence.
The location for the proposed subdivision was a 1.1 acre parcel on the north side of West Park Place, about 160 feet east of the South Orange Street/West Park Place intersection.
Tim Brown, Walton County senior planner, explained that the proposal involved turning three lots into six lots, along with a roadway that would be an extension of Pompano Street going in on a 66-foot-wide government easement.
The new road, which would stop short of U.S. 98, was to be constructed by the developer at his expense.
Brown told the commissioners that previous plans had been for the new road to occupy only the southern 33 feet of the easement—but that Walton County Public Works had given direction for it to be placed in the center of the 66-foot easement. This was in order for the road to line up with the existing portion of Pompano Street. Drainage swales for the road were to be included within the easement.
In response to a question from Walton County District 5 Commissioner Cindy Meadows, Brown said the public works and everyone else involved had determined that it would be best not continue the new road to connect with U.S. 98.
Meadows expressed concern about the width of the new road. “You’re talking about a major improvement for three lots,” she said.
She suggested having the lots share an entrance with Inlet Dunes Condominium, which would allow for just an 18-foot driveway for the three lots.
The condominium has an entrance gate constructed within the part of the easement on its property. Meadows suggested moving the gate further to the east in conjunction with the shared-entrance approach that she had recommended.
Brown said the applicants had indicated that they had tried to work with the condominium on an agreement to share the entrance but had been unsuccessful.
Comander expressed concern about the gate and the condominium’s dumpster occupying the county easement. She was uneasy that someone would try to have the public easement abandoned.
District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman called the road as shown on the plans “overkill,” due to the fact that the road would dead-end. If it were to continue to U.S. 98, there would be more reason for the road to be a larger construction project, he reasoned.
Chance Powell, county engineer, explained that public works had taken into consideration fire protection and utilities in connection with requirements for design of the road, along with space for stormwater retention. He said there is an existing closed-basin stormwater issue to the east and that they had wanted to ensure that the road would not contribute to this problem. One-hundred-year stormwater attenuation had been a requirement for the road, Powell noted.
Having the entire project accessed from West Park Place would be another option, Powell commented.
Walton County Attorney Mark Davis commented that in his opinion the BCC had discretion as to whether to “open” the easement for construction of the new road.
Dean Burgis, engineer of record for the project and a representative of the applicants, emphasized that the easement was a viable public access. The swales shown on the design plans for the road were large due to public works directing that the road be designed for a 100-year storm, he said.
Burgis said that the access suggested from West Park Place had been discussed but was determined by the applicants not to be their best choice due to congestion on that road from the county park to the south and a nearby wedding venue to the east.
The fact that the condominium gate had been constructed within the county easement was discussed. Meadows pointed out that the gate had been in place for well over 30 years without the county taking any action regarding it.
Burgis confirmed that removal of the entrance gate would be required in order to put in the road and associated improvements. However he said the gate could be reinstalled outside of the 33-foot easement on the condominium property.
Meadows suggested that all the lots could be accessed from West Park Place with a 20-foot private alley, eliminating the need to “reinvent the wheel” with the project.
Cappy Kidd, whose family owns property at the intersection of South Orange Street and U.S. 98, gave the history of the family and the property, a large portion of which was taken through eminent domain when U.S. 98 was widened.
The remaining two small lots owned by the family (0.4 acre and 0.2 acre) contain half of the 66-foot easement on their southern portion, Kidd explained. He expressed the opinion that putting drainage on the Kidd and Inlet Dunes property was an aim with the proposed road.
Kidd said he had approximately 400 signatures on a petition opposing the subdivision project. He charged that the project would eliminate six of Inlet Dunes’ parking spaces. He asked the commissioners how many six-lot subdivisions have two entrances.
Kidd called the easement “hypothetical” and pointed out that its continuation had already been abandoned on the north side of U.S. 98.
Representing Inlet Dunes, local attorney Gary Vorbeck argued that the commissioners were being asked by the applicants to create a public road that would not serve a purpose except for the benefit of the developers. “You don’t have to open this road up,” he stressed.
The developers, he continued, were proposing to cut three driveways off West Park Place, thus “exacerbating the problem” of the congestion that their representative had referenced.
He argued that the purpose of the easement was to prevent property owners from being landlocked, not to “kick people off” their property and put in a county road.
“Basically, the developer should not be allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the neighbors,” Vorbeck concluded.
A number of Inlet Dunes residents spoke in opposition to the project.
Speaking for the condominium homeowners’ association, Kathleen Crowley told the commissioners that approval of the project would cost the homeowners approximately $150,000. She asked them to have the developer confine his project to his property, which can be accessed from West Park Place.
Burgis countered that the project would create a road for the use of the public. Both the Kidd family and Inlet Dunes would be able to use the new road to access their property, he commented. Burgis maintained that the project would not take away any of Inlet Dunes’ parking spaces.
“We’re just asking to put a public road in a public easement,” he asserted.
Chapman said he would like to know who was being truthful about whether Inlet Dunes parking spaces would be lost or not.
Mala Steffen, one of the applicants along with her husband Joseph, addressed the commissioners.
Steffen said the couple have had a vacation home in Inlet Beach for a number of years, now live in Inlet Beach want to build their “dream home.” She said they tried unsuccessfully to reach a compromise with their neighbors.
“The law is that there is an easement,” Steffen said.
She told the officials that denying the use of the easement would be “rewarding bad behavior.”
“(West) Park Place in the summer is a zoo,” Steffen said, adding that she had seen buses full of people being unloaded at the county beach access there.
Comander relinquished the gavel to move to have the parties meet one more time to try to resolve issues with the project, after which the proposal would be brought back before the BCC. District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones seconded the motion.
Meadows commented that it was “ludicrous” that so much impact to existing properties would be involved with a six-lot subdivision. She called instead for a redesign of the project with all lots to be accessed via West Park Place.
A vote was taken on Comander’s motion, with her vote the only one in favor.
Meadows then moved to deny the project as presented, with the easement to remain unopened and with direction for the project to be redesigned for all lots to be accessed from West Park Place. Chapman seconded the motion
The vote was 2-2, with Meadows and Chapman voting for the denial and Comander and Jones voting no.
There was discussion on continuing the proposal in the wake of the two failed motions. However, Meadows stated that a tie vote results in failure of a proposal, whether the motion is to approve or deny. This was confirmed to be the case, based on meeting procedure rules used by the BCC.
The meeting concluded with an announcement that the project was denied.