By DOTTY NIST
Arguments by attorneys and testimony by expert witnesses consumed most of a three-hour county commission quasi-judicial hearing on the Redesign of Chateau 30A/Hampton Inn development proposal, with no decision to approve or deny resulting.
The Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) special meeting on March 5 at the Seascape Conference Center drew approximately 300 attendees.
Proposed for a 2.4-acre parcel on the north side of CR-30A in Seagrove, across from Williams Street, the development would include a 59,256-square-foot Hampton Inn and 660 square feet of retail.
The county staff position, stated by Brian Underwood, county planner, was that the project would be consistent with the Walton County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.
The proposal has attracted opposition, to say the least, with correspondence from 142 people received by the county, along with a petition in objection bearing nearly 10,000 signatures.
Project applicants Charles Rigdon and M.C. Davis were present. Rigdon spoke briefly, but, other than that, Tallahassee attorney Davis Theriaque spoke on the applicants’ behalf. Local attorney Colleen Sachs and her associates were in attendance to represent the South Walton Community Council (SWCC), which opposes the project.
District 5 Commissioner Cindy Meadows raised a number of issues, one of which was related to transportation concurrency. According to the staff report, the project does not meet transportation concurrency under the LDC. The report states that the developer may be able to satisfy the concurrency requirement through payment of a $159,000 proportional fair share contribution.
Meadows confirmed that CR-30A is a constrained roadway and that there are no plans for roadway improvements in that area contained in the county’s current capital improvements program.
Theriaque pointed out that intensity and floor area ratio for the proposal are below what is allowed. According to the staff report, an intensity of 0.85 is allowable while one of 0.57 is proposed. A floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 is allowable, and a 0.58 FAR is proposed, the report also states. Up to 125 hotel rooms would be allowable, Theriaque continued, and 90 rooms are being proposed.
Tallahassee land use planner Wendy Grey testified for the applicants as an expert witness. Countering project opponents’ contention that, with no residential and with the small amount of retail, the proposal does not comply with the mix of uses required for the VMU land use, Grey stated that in her opinion the proposal does provide two uses. She also testified that in her opinion a mix of uses is not required on the parcel, since there is no residential component to the proposal.
Grey also found the proposal to be “compatible with the abutting neighborhood uses due to “no undue negative impacts” on those uses. She testified that there would be no full-service restaurant associated with the hotel and that lighting was designed not to spill over onto surrounding properties.
County Commission Chairman Bill Imfeld asked about alcoholic beverages in connection with the hotel. Rigdon fielded that question, stating that alcohol sales would not be allowed due to the presence of the church on adjoining property (Seagrove Baptist Church.) He added that alcohol is not sold at Hampton Inns.
Meadows questioned the compatibility of the development, pointing out that there are many single-family homes and rental properties within a half mile of the project site. She also expressed doubt that the 600-square foot retail area would be “bona fide retail use” because it was shown behind a gate and pool.
Theriaque protested that Meadows was making an assumption with the later statement and that she was taking on the role of “prosecutor” rather than receiving evidence.
When Sachs began her arguments a short time later, Theriaque also objected to the SWCC being considered to have “standing” in the matter.
In response, Walton County Attorney Mark Davis advised the BCC to continue to hear the arguments subject to the objection.
Sachs pledged that she would demonstrate the SWCC’s standing. She contended that the project “fails as VMU.” She also alleged that the parcel is an “illegal” one due to no lot split having been approved by the county for the parcel, which had previously been a single lot encompassing the property now occupied by an adjoining self-storage business.
Blue Mountain Beach resident and urban planner Barry Hogue testified as expert witness for the project opponents. He stated that as “just a single-use hotel” that is “meant to serve its guests” the proposal does not meet the VMU category. He could not conceive how the development would serve the “broader village,” or residents in the vicinity Hogue continued. “It does not connect with the surrounding neighborhood,” he charged.
Sachs raised questions with regard to a preservation buy-out proposed as part of the development, contending that the plan does not meet code preservation requirements and that at least 1.25 acres of preservation should be required. She also maintained that it should be at the BCC’s discretion whether to approve the proposed buy-out of half of the preservation requirement.
Sachs also spoke of “a property dispute” allegedly in effect concerning the project site. No project should go ahead on an area “unsettled in ownership,” she warned.
In cross-examination by Theriaque, Sachs admitted that both parcels abutting the project site had single rather than mixed use.
After additional cross-examination, little time remained before 7 p.m., the previously-agreed-upon time for the hearing to be concluded. Meadows moved to keep on with the hearing rather than concluding at that time. She observed that people had driven and flown in long distances to attend. She urged for all relevant testimony to be heard “tonight” and for the hearing to proceed “until we get kicked out of the building” if necessary.
A vote on Meadows’ motion failed in a 2-2 vote, with Meadows and District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones voting yes, and Imfeld and District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman voting no. District 3 Commissioner Sara Comander was absent due to illness.
Some time remained to hear from some of the citizens who had signed up to address the commissioners, although some responded “pass” when their names were called. All public comment was in opposition.
“It is wrong,” Rod Smith told the commissioners. Referring to the VMU category, he observed that the proposed retail area amounts to slightly over one-percent of the development. Calling the proposal “a dangerous precedent,” Smith urged the commissioners to “hit the pause button” and deny.
Amanda Schuette called the project “a horrible idea.” Putting a “huge interstate hotel” on CR-30A would “not work,” she objected.
Seagrove resident/urban designer Mark Schnell displayed a picture of the classic “Where’s the beef?” commercial and asked “What I want to know is, where’s the village?”
Kelley Mossburg, president of the SWCC, was the last member of the public to speak. He maintained that the project would have a negative impact. Mossburg appealed to the commissioners to “carefully weigh” the interest of citizens as they considered the application, to ensure that the spirit and intent of the code were met, to protect citizens’ interests, and to uphold the code and laws of the county.
The meeting was concluded with Imfeld stating that there would be a recess until 4 p.m. on April 1, at which time the matter would be taken up again. The meeting location was not specified. Additional information will be forthcoming.
